I see three fundamental problems with the question:
1) "Belief" is an uninteresting question to pose about scientific models.
2) The assumption that science produces "final conclusions", one way or another.
3) Chicago in Oct. 2014 is one "local" instance. It is not possible to use local examples in isolation to contradict a global theory.
Even if the earth stopped warming for nearly two decades, I would still cling to my belief that man's evil activities are the dominant driver of the earth's climate. Anyone who things differently is going to Hell.
Loot wrote:
0% of the legitimate science community believes in global warning, you shtbrained liberal. It is not scientifically possible for the inhabitants of Earth to alter the climate of Earth.
Do humanity a favor and off yourself.
Have you heard of the "no true scotsman fallacy"?
You may have just fallen into it.
Well played. That was an excellent application of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
le veritable wrote:
Loot wrote:0% of the legitimate science community believes in global warning, you shtbrained liberal. It is not scientifically possible for the inhabitants of Earth to alter the climate of Earth.
Do humanity a favor and off yourself.
Have you heard of the "no true scotsman fallacy"?
You may have just fallen into it.
Meanwhile, GLOBALLY, we're on target for the warmest year ever.
Yeah, about that... wrote:
I'm pleased to see that this thread is largely eschewing "data" and "research" and "logic" and "facts" and mostly sticking to assertion and invective. Now *that's* the LRC we know and love!
+1
Actually, the people that believe in Global Warming or "accept" Global Warming often Google search for stories supporting Global Warming and voila! They find what they are looking for.
Now if you take a second and Google search it as a hoax or a lie or untrue or whatever, you will find tons of content about how it is not happening including:
UN data that clearly demonstrates that temperatures have not gone up in 18 years.
Al Gore thirteen years ago was worth 1.7 million dollars and is now worth over 200 million dollars. Good actor.
The Heartland Institute and the Oregon institute ( I think) have over 30,000 signatures from scientists who do not support Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is a video on YouTube about it. So much for consensus.
There are many scientists who do not support AGW, in fact there is a vocal former NASA scientist who has some videos, which you can find on YouTube who denounces AGW.
I can go on and on....it is not happening.
Problem is all the cool aid drinkers are being fed the pro warming propaganda because that is the only side the mainstream media will air.
The human ability to rationalize one's belief system is truly a thing of wonder.
Or maybe the world is littered with trolls.
Citizen Runner wrote:
The human ability to rationalize one's belief system is truly a thing of wonder.
Confirmation bias: learn it, live it, love it.
A prof once told us that an argument is only productive when all the parties to it can say (sincerely), "But I could be wrong." Otherwise you've got a religious argument. (Which is not necessarily about religion at all: think Harvard vs. Yale.)
Seems like most of the folks on this thread have opted for the religious side of things...
Lol your post is awesome but citing the heartland institute was the best part!
Its 102 degrees in the Valley of LA today
Really
Above 100 every day this week
asgw wrote:
A prof once told us that an argument is only productive when all the parties to it can say (sincerely), "But I could be wrong." Otherwise you've got a religious argument.
That's a nice, succinct test. I like it.
I used to share an office with a fellow physicist who was a vehement anthopogenic climate change denier. What struck me was not really the reasons he believed what he believed but how emotional and angry above all other subjects this subject made him.
I asked him once why he thought this was and the conclusion I came to from what he said is that accepting anthropogenic climate change comes with the burden of having to change behaviour with the likely result of being less comfortable. I reckon that if the message coming from the scientific community was "anthropogenic climate change is happening but don't worry we're building a machine to fix it so everything will be ok again in a couple of months" there would be no climate change deniers.
asgw wrote:
Confirmation bias: learn it, live it, love it.
A prof once told us that an argument is only productive when all the parties to it can say (sincerely), "But I could be wrong." Otherwise you've got a religious argument. (Which is not necessarily about religion at all: think Harvard vs. Yale.)
Seems like most of the folks on this thread have opted for the religious side of things...
Agreed. I might be wrong in my belief that AGW is far less than warmists would have us believe. Assuming I am wrong, the logical question would be what can I (we, the world) do about it?
This is really the question. If AGW really exists, what should we be doing about it?
The AGW response to this question is an epic fail.
It's hubris to assert that we can predict with any degree of certainty what will happen 100 years from now.
It's hubris to assert that we can prevent future AGW by limiting CO2 emissions to some arbitrary number. Indeed, some AGW proponents claimed the damage would be irreversible once CO2 levels surpassed 350PPM. That happened years ago. Since CO2 purportedly stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, future reductions aren't going to get us back to that level by 2100.
It's massive hubris to believe that we can dictate the future CO2 emissions of other sovereign nations. Conservation of fossil fuels is not the answer. Carbon credits are a joke. People are starving and dying in third world nations NOW because of lack of energy. Coal, oil, trees, camel dung... they are going to burn whatever is available to produce energy to heat their huts and cook their food. To survive and prosper, these people need more energy, not less.
Yes, we should be researching alternative energies, but we shouldn't be building operational wind and solar facilities. They are too primitive, too inefficient, too expensive, and too dangerous to the environment. The current generation of these technologies will be dinosaurs in 30 years.
My belief is that it is far better to focus on known, existing problems (dysentery, malaria, measles, better water supplies, air pollution) than to focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, we should also continue research to find a renewable, inexpensive source of alternative energy.
If AGW is real, world efforts should focus on how to mitigate its future negative effects and optimize its many beneficial effects.
Athletics Illustrated wrote:
The Heartland Institute and the Oregon institute ( I think) have over 30,000 signatures from scientists who do not support Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is a video on YouTube about it. So much for consensus.
Debunked.
Of those supposed 30,000 scientists, inside of 0.1% have any background in climateology or atmospheric sciences and at least some of the names appear to be complete fabrications.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.htmlHow you think that that 29 gigatons of carbon that human activity puts into the air, 40% of which is beyond what the Earth can readily absorb and take out of the air, is beyond my comprehension.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htmUK Limey runner wrote:
asgw wrote:A prof once told us that an argument is only productive when all the parties to it can say (sincerely), "But I could be wrong." Otherwise you've got a religious argument.
That's a nice, succinct test. I like it.
I used to share an office with a fellow physicist who was a vehement anthopogenic climate change denier. What struck me was not really the reasons he believed what he believed but how emotional and angry above all other subjects this subject made him.
I asked him once why he thought this was and the conclusion I came to from what he said is that accepting anthropogenic climate change comes with the burden of having to change behaviour with the likely result of being less comfortable. I reckon that if the message coming from the scientific community was "anthropogenic climate change is happening but don't worry we're building a machine to fix it so everything will be ok again in a couple of months" there would be no climate change deniers.
You're last statement is 100% true, but not exactly a good reason to dismiss their point of view. Which is what it sounds like you're alluding to.
I was once told by a Dr that my knees were so messed up I would likely never run again. Obviously that triggered an emotional response and spurred me to do a ton of research on my own. I concluded that he was pretty much wrong, not only in my specific case but in the typical case. Follow ups with another Dr confirmed this. I ended up getting back and running a good bit. If he had told me in the beginning "just wait two weeks and you'll be good as new" I would obviously been more likely to take his word for it. But he would have been equally as wrong since the truth was somewhere in between.
'Where's the global warming?' Expert says public are growing sceptical of climate change
THE PUBLIC are becoming ever more sceptical of climate change as they begin to ask 'where is the global warming we were promised?', a leading scientist has claimed.
The public are more sceptical about climate change than ever before [GETTY]
This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth's temperature last rose - something that Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand.
He explains that we are now in the midst of a "crisis of credibility" because the global warming - and accompanied 'Doomsday' effects - that we were once warned about has not happened.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade - but are now baffled by the fact our planet's temperature has not increased for almost two decades.
Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk, Dr Peiser said: "What has happened is that the public has become more sceptical because they were told we are facing Doomsday, and suddenly they realise ‘Where is the warming that we were promised?’"
"They say we can predict the climate and the reality is that they can’t."
MORE CLIMATE CHANGE LIES EXPOSED HERE
Because of this so-called "global warming hiatus", Dr Peiser says climate change is not as pressing of an issue as it once was, a fact that should be embraced by the scientific community.
"Climate change used to be a top priority but it has dropped quite significantly - other issues are more important for international meetings," he said.
"The reality is that they are quite relieved in a way, and we should all be relieved that it isn’t such a big problem at present.
"We might have much more time than many people once told us."
However, the reason behind the current pause in rising temperatures remains a mystery, and there are said to be more than 30 theories attempting to decipher what caused this stability.
Some scientists suggest the heat may have gone into the ocean, but Dr Peiser remains unconvinced by this theory.
Dr Peiser is a leading expert on global warming [DR BENNY PEISER]
The public has become more sceptical because they were told we are facing Doomsday, and suddenly they realise ‘Where is the warming that we were promised?’
dreamin wrote:
You're last statement is 100% true, but not exactly a good reason to dismiss their point of view. Which is what it sounds like you're alluding to.
I'm not sure about the "100% true" thing but I do agree that it is not a good reason to dismiss their point of view. My position is evidence-based and forgive the tautology but clearly I dismiss the position that I dismiss. The observation of emotional response to the subject is simply an interesting aside.
Conundrum wrote:
Loot wrote:Everyone with a 5+ IQ knew it was a hoax from the get go. But, sadly, many liberals can never meet that threshold.
Yes 98% of the science community secretly got together and decided to put together a hoax on the American people. They all took an oath never to tell the truth about global warming!
It so obvious, I can't understand how people don't see it!
I heard they have secret meetings in Independence, MO. It's in the Holiday Inn ballroom every third Tuesday. The secret passcode is Avogadro's number to seven digits.
The truth is out there.
Fat hurts wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Yes 98% of the science community secretly got together and decided to put together a hoax on the American people. They all took an oath never to tell the truth about global warming!
It so obvious, I can't understand how people don't see it!
I heard they have secret meetings in Independence, MO. It's in the Holiday Inn ballroom every third Tuesday. The secret passcode is Avogadro's number to seven digits.
The truth is out there.
The Holiday Inn in independence doesn't have a ballroom.