Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Right, and I totally agree, but there are A LOT of people who have been presented with very professional, logical and well thought out news snippets about how there are 2 sides. And these are smart well educated people that totally believe these snippets. So they're not there yet. Somehow we have to help them see that the place they get their "news" from does not want them to understand that there's only one side.
 
Right, and I totally agree, but there are A LOT of people who have been presented with very professional, logical and well thought out news snippets about how there are 2 sides. And these are smart well educated people that totally believe these snippets. So they're not there yet. Somehow we have to help them see that the place they get their "news" from does not want them to understand that there's only one side.

Yes, that's the problem. It's presented as if both sides have equal weight, when one side clearly outweighs the other.
 
Right, and I totally agree, but there are A LOT of people who have been presented with very professional, logical and well thought out news snippets about how there are 2 sides. And these are smart well educated people that totally believe these snippets. So they're not there yet. Somehow we have to help them see that the place they get their "news" from does not want them to understand that there's only one side.

John Oliver made this point very well... I think he's going to be the new Jon Stewart...
 
Yes, that's the problem. It's presented as if both sides have equal weight, when one side clearly outweighs the other.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. With respect to matters of science, the national academies of science are the gold standard. Among the national academies of science and international scientific societies there is no other side. There is unanimity about the scientific basis and reality of manmade climate change. Any illusion of another side is merely that, an illusion which has been conjured up as a result of the expenditure of billions of dollars by commerical interests who are polluting minds with disinformation in order to enable them to pollute the environment with more carbon pollution. The fact that they can buy politicians, hire PR firms and lobbyists, and hire armies of trolls and sock puppets to confuse the public does nothing to change the fact that there is no scientific debate. It is over.

Wikipedia notes as follows with respect to the scientific consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[SUP][5][/SUP]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[SUP][6][/SUP]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[SUP][7][/SUP] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[SUP][7][/SUP] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[SUP][7][/SUP]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[SUP][8][/SUP]
  • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[SUP][9][/SUP]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[SUP][10][/SUP] which in 2007[SUP][11][/SUP] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[SUP][12][/SUP] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

As noted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, in its 2006 official statement on climate change:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.
See: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement2.pdf
 
> . . there is no other side. [RichardC]

In scientific inquiry there is always the other side, or usually other sides. There is always more than one approach to solving a problem or attempting to categorize a finding or discovery. This is basic to Science / Scientific Method. A proper Logic Chart will show ALL known avenues even though some of the avenues don't go very far due to inherent weaknesses or being disproven. Students should be shown the entire chart as they need to cogitate upon past thinking. Not knowing history one is doomed to repeat it (all!!).

If you don't trust your students you will tend to pound thoughts into their heads. And we are in fact all students.
--
 
> . . there is no other side. [RichardC]

In scientific inquiry there is always the other side, or usually other sides.
--

Yeah.....no....;

"A Hydrogen atom contains 1 proton."

What's the other side?

Someone might propose the hypothesis that a hydrogen atom also contains 7 dark protons but until they test that hypotheses it's wrong to teach that to students or publicize it. That's the mistake Pons and Fleischmann made... peer review exists for a reason.

Doubling CO2 will cause the earth to warm ~3C; There are no other valid (tested, falsifiable) theories... there is no other side.

The increase in CO2 is a direct result of adding ~30B tons of CO2 annually thru burning fossil fuels; There are no other valid theories... there is no other side.

CO2 has increased ~40% due to burning fossil fuels; There are no other valid theories... there is no other side.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact;
 
> . . there is no other side. [RichardC]

In scientific inquiry there is always the other side, or usually other sides. There is always more than one approach to solving a problem or attempting to categorize a finding or discovery.
--


Ummm... no.... There is some tradition of teaching science by showing the false trails. Sometimes, when there is a phenomena that is "intuitively obvious", such as "The Sun goes around the Earth", it can help a little to show how a person could see that in day-to-day observation, and how precise measurements will give the true story. Therefore, the "false path" is sometimes used in teaching, to help illuminate the factual path.

But...

There is no "other side" of the Sun/Earth orbital relationship. The Earth orbits the Sun. Period. Another example (from the Wikipedia article on Scientific Method): A historical example is the belief that the legs of a galloping horse are splayed at the point when none of the horse's legs touches the ground, to the point of this image being included in paintings by its supporters. However, the first stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge showed this to be false, and that the legs are instead gathered together. No "other side" to this one either.

So, no, there is no "other side" inherent in the "Scientific Method". In fact, the "Scientific Method" can be defined as eliminating the false paths through controlled verification (aka experiment). Exactly the opposite of current "there are multiple sides to all discussions", which is just modernist politically correct tripe.

Danal
 
I'm with wycolo on this one. I'm kind of surprised at the level of certainty shown by the "scientist" crowd in this thread. Today's "know" is tomorrow's "OMG we were so cute and stupid back then."

I'm not saying there aren't "permanent facts". I'm saying that our understanding and perception of, well everything, is constantly evolving. The hubris of thinking you "know" to the degree of outright silencing or rejecting separate thought is, well, troubling.
 
I'm with wycolo on this one. I'm kind of surprised at the level of certainty shown by the "scientist" crowd in this thread. Today's "know" is tomorrow's "OMG we were so cute and stupid back then."

I'm not saying there aren't "permanent facts". I'm saying that our understanding and perception of, well everything, is constantly evolving. The hubris of thinking you "know" to the degree of outright silencing or rejecting separate thought is, well, troubling.

Arguing on the merits of Pessimistic meta-induction is not particularly helpful as the planet's atmosphere is going to s***t.

The argument goes: Most scientific "truths" of the past are later disproven, thus scientific "truths" of today are likely false.

Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

However, the counter argument is that all we know today is built on the "truths" of the past so they can't all have been wrong, now can they?
 
I'm with wycolo on this one. I'm kind of surprised at the level of certainty shown by the "scientist" crowd in this thread. Today's "know" is tomorrow's "OMG we were so cute and stupid back then."

I'm not saying there aren't "permanent facts". I'm saying that our understanding and perception of, well everything, is constantly evolving. The hubris of thinking you "know" to the degree of outright silencing or rejecting separate thought is, well, troubling.

As you say. There are competing hypotheses, any I have heard about regarding climate change don't hold water, but to dismiss them just because they are competing isn't the scientific method. Of course, the problems are that there is large funding for these competing hypotheses even though they have been discredited, and the media gives equal weight to both hypotheses which causes the general public to believe that because each side has a talking head, it doesn't matter which one you pick.
 
I am sorry, but I have to disagree. With respect to matters of science, the national academies of science are the gold standard. Among the national academies of science and international scientific societies there is no other side. There is unanimity about the scientific basis and reality of manmade climate change. Any illusion of another side is merely that, an illusion which has been conjured up as a result of the expenditure of billions of dollars by commerical interests who are polluting minds with disinformation in order to enable them to pollute the environment with more carbon pollution. The fact that they can buy politicians, hire PR firms and lobbyists, and hire armies of trolls and sock puppets to confuse the public does nothing to change the fact that there is no scientific debate. It is over.

Agree 100%. There is no other side concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue. Of course the scientific debate on this matter has always to be open but no other side. People thinking there are other sides concerning the Climate Change/Global Warming issue deep down hope that somehow it will be found out that the situation of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not so serious and dangerous like it is now.
 
It's undeniably true that certain scientific theories have subsequently turned out to be incorrect. For example, the number of chromosomes in human cells was initially miscounted, published as 24 pairs in 1923, and only widely understood to be incorrect in 1956. What is much more common is that theories get refined. For example, Newtonian mechanics is only an approximation of relativistic mechanics (which we currently think is correct :) ); that said, though, in most situations you can't measure the difference, and bridges built based on Newtonian mechanics mostly still don't fall down, at least not because the design was wrong. But the vast majority of scientific theories just work, and keep on working. Archimedes' "Eureka", that solids displace an equivalent volume of liquids, led to understanding of when things float or don't, to understanding density, to all sorts of things, and that theory has survived unchanged and unchallenged for 2.5 millennia. Quantum theory works! If you want to dispute that it is correct, please give back your DVD player, LED/LCD screen and Internet connection. Now, we actually know that Quantum theory and Gravity theory are currently irreconcilable! One, or probably both, still need to be refined. But that doesn't make them wrong, or make their predictions incorrect.

We're still refining the science of climate change, but most of the predictions it makes are correct and verifiable. Sure, we'll have a better understanding in 10 years or a century, but I'm 100% sure that the better understanding won't be "OK, we were wrong about global warming." It will be more like "Gee, the oceans are a much better heat sink than we understood; almost all of that temperature rise is in the water! And by the way, that causes hurricanes and insane snowstorms in certain sensitive regions." That, by the way, is one of the refinements from the last 10 years.
 
ALL science is provisionally accepted as true.
NOTHING is ever PROVEN true... there are only theories that have been falsified and theories that might be falsified.
The scientific theories that we accept as reality are those that have survived falsification.

That DOES NOT mean that there's always 'another side'.

When we thought that there were 24 chromosome we simply didn't have to tools to know better... there STILL wasn't another side.
When we recounted with better equipment the 24 count was rejected and 46 was accepted... there STILL wasn't another side.

We teach rejected theories as a lesson on the evolution of science... not as alternatives to accepted reality... there are very very rarely two sides to a scientific debate... and when there are it doesn't last very long. There are areas if scientific ignorance; the most glaring is probably General Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics. Two theories that are supposed to govern everything but don't. Even here there aren't really two sides so much as a giant question mark; each theory appears to be correct in it's own realm but you can't have two theories of everything. As Neil Tyson is fond of saying, 'In science it's ok to say I don't know'.

'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is one of the best sources on this topic...

There can be only one reality... the scientific method is the best tool ever devised for discovering it.
 
We teach rejected theories as a lesson on the evolution of science... not as alternatives to accepted reality... there are very very rarely two sides to a scientific debate... and when there are it doesn't last very long. There are areas if scientific ignorance; the most glaring is probably General Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics. Two theories that are supposed to govern everything but don't. Even here there aren't really two sides so much as a giant question mark; each theory appears to be correct in it's own realm but you can't have two theories of everything. As Neil Tyson is fond of saying, 'In science it's ok to say I don't know'.

'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is one of the best sources on this topic...

There can be only one reality... the scientific method is the best tool ever devised for discovering it.

nwdiver, I agree.

In order to move beyond the realm of abstract metaphysical debate, we need to get to the science. While I make no claims with respect to the fallibility or infallibility of National Academies of Science, as a practical matter I believe that they reflect the most highly distilled application of the scientific method with respect to simple and well understood laws of physics and chemistry (such as those underlying man-made global warming).

To bring the application of the scientific method more directly to bear, it is my contention that if there truly is an "other side", that there must be at least one peer-reviewed scientific paper which substantially challenges the scientific consensus on the basic mechanisms of manmade global warming, and which has not yet been thoroughly discredited by subsequent scientific research and scholarship.

If there is such a paper I would ask that it be provided in order that we can have a discussion of the "other side" - in the absence of such a paper, all that we are left to discuss is the theoretical possibility of the existence of an "other side" but are not in fact discussing an "other side".

To be more precise, while I readily acknowledge the existence of alternative theoretical constructs (after all, that is how science advances), that current theories may be in some way incorrect and would never want to prevent any legitimate scientific debate, it is simply not reasonable to assert that totally discredited and disproven theories (e.g., sunspots, natural variation, etc.) comprise an "other side" such that they merit a seat at the table.

I would once again ask those wishing to champion a discussion of the "other side" to please provide a peer-reviewed paper setting forth such "other side".
 
Last edited:
The "other side" (other than a few loose ends to tie up where the data appears to have been modified systemically instead of used as-is by some over-eager scientists that only go to create doubt) is on the public policy side.

So, yes - the greater majority of the world believes the CO2 level is rising. But science has not yet been right on the effects (Alaska hasn't become Hawaii, the southern US hasn't become Death Valley yet, and the US hasn't sent the military to take over Canada yet, contrary to the predictions of 30 years of science), and that's necessary before we can make public policy decisions about what to do about it. In fact, the predictions have been so far off base that we really don't know whether we can believe the models or not. Those people who believe that society should spare no expense to eliminate anything exporting CO2 say we don't have time for science anymore, and that knowing the effects really isn't important if we just understand that CO2 is "bad, it's bad!" (read as Dana Carvey doing GHWB). Meanwhile, the public policy leaders are trying to say "we aren't done yet".

That said, I think we've worn out this thread a bit and the discussion is migrating back toward the other thread's intentions, where the Scientology of Global Warming education can continue.
 
Last edited:
So, yes - the greater majority of the world believes the CO2 level is rising. But science has not yet been right on the effects (Alaska hasn't become Hawaii, the southern US hasn't become Death Valley yet,

Sorry I don't understand. Please read the presentation by Prof. Steneck concerrning the Ocean Acidification issue in post #224 of this thread. Then maybe that you will make up your mind on this point.
 
People also need to think about this from a risk management point of view.

On the one side, the science isn't 100% accurate. It probably won't even be 95% accurate for decades if not longer. Climate and weather is complex stuff.

But if we screw up our climate, we don't get do-overs and the downsides of screwing up our climate are huge.

Here's a partial list. The odds look good that at least some of these will happen. Some look to be happening right now.

- Changes in weather patterns that cause droughts will wreak havoc on farming, economies of high agricultural states, resorts (no snow in the US Pacific mountains).

- Changes in ocean chemistry will damage fishing stocks - many of which are already depleted.

- Small sea level rises will wipe out billions of dollars of property values. Google "Outer Banks sea level rise" to see some stories about what's happening in North Carolina.

If a few of these happen, it will be body blow to the world economies and many real people will wind up with their lives destroyed. By the time it becomes clear that one of these is happening, it may be too late to reverse it. Or if it is reversible, doing so might take decades which will be too late for the people affected.

Given what's at stake and that we don't get do-overs, we should act before the science meets your required level of proof because if we wait until then, it will likely be too late.
 
Some posts have been removed to snippiness.

My sense is that this thread's topic has been fully and thoroughly discussed. Please continue discussion only if there are genuinely new points that contribute.

?????? How is this snippy?

There are known unknowns, unknown unknowns......

AND known knowns... about which there is almost ZERO doubt.

- CO2 has risen 40% in the last 100 years

- Fossil Fuels ARE responsible

- Doubling CO2 will cause global temps to rise >3C

Those items alone should be more than sufficient to justify EXTENSIVE caution with regards to burdening our biosphere with more and more CO2... even if we can't predict precisely when or how bad the damage will be.