beyond persuasion

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

^

Surely the point would be though, that until the "weight of the discipline" reaches a general consensus point of high percentage, that the dissenters have to be acknowledged?

Trace the people on both sides of the argument, you'll find conflict of interest in belief and in sponsorship.

[pietillidie]

^

Surely the point would be though, that until the "weight of the discipline" reaches a general consensus point of high percentage, that the dissenters have to be acknowledged?

Trace the people on both sides of the argument, you'll find conflict of interest in belief and in sponsorship.

But the weight of consensus in this case renders the disagreement and contention very marginal. You can't ask more of climate science than material science just because you don't like some group of barefoot hippies somewhere who are excited by the findings.

Every single scientific finding we rely upon everyday was sponsored somewhere, somehow. You actually have to demonstrate that the sponsorship is meaningfully and particularly detrimental to the overwhelming consensus in each instance. In this case there is no evidence the sponsorship is negatively impacting the scientific consensus any more than any consensus in any other field elsewhere. Sponsorship is of course impacting the public opinion consensus, but that's entirely unrelated to the scientific consensus.

Outside the media noise the consensus is about as good as you get in science.

[Tannin]

Surely the point would be though, that until the "weight of the discipline" reaches a general consensus point of high percentage, that the dissenters have to be acknowledged?

It did that years ago. Of all scientists with relevant qualifications, 97% accept that climate change is real, and that it is attributable to human causes. That's a very, very strong consensus.

NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Skeptical SCience: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
Professor John Cook, University of Queensland: https://theconversation.com/its-true-97 ... ning-14051

[stui magpie]

Whether I like bare foot hippies is irrelevant, I'm not actually arguing against climate change or the scientific evidence.

All I'm pointing out is that the science is not conclusive, there's way too many interest groups involved and people choose sides based on what they want to believe (confirmation bias at work) rather than science.

The other thing that helps support climate change deniers is the constantly moving feast that has been the climate change advocates case. Yep, the science may have changed as they found more facts and did more research, but to the layman it can present as a bunch of people hell bent on proving that man made climate change exists and constantly changing what causes it.

What ever did happen to that hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to have fried us all by now?

[pietillidie]

[stui magpie]

I missed Tannin's post in posting. I'll review the links and get back later.

[Tannin]

Stui, the hole in the ozone layer has got nothing, repeat nothing to do with global warming, and never did. Where are you getting this nonsense from? The ozone hole

(1) Has a completely different cause - the release of ozone-destroying chemicals into the atmosphere from old-fashioned HFC spray can propellant and airconditioning gases. 20 or 30 years ago we started replacing these very damaging chemicals with modern, safer alternatives, and although the ozone hole still exists, it is no longer growing and is gradually starting to shrink.

(2) The effect of ozone depletion is largely irrelevant to global warming. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is what protects us from ultraviolet solar radiation. Because of ozone depletion, UV damage to humans (skin cancers, UV-related blindness) greatly increased, especially in the most southerly parts of the populated world, including Australia. This is why we had the Slip Slop Slap campaign. This is why we wear sunscreen. 50 and 100 years ago, sunlight had less UV (because ozone filtered more of it out) and skin cancers were less common. In time, they wil become less common again.

What ever did happen to that hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to have fried us all by now?

We, the world as a whole, took action to phase out CFCs and other ozone-destroying chemicals and the hole stopped growing and, over time, will gradually shrink back to a normal state. There was a problem, we fixed it by learning how to do things better without any loss of anything worth mentioning - same as we can fix the global warming problem once we put our minds to it.

[watt price tully]

Surely the point would be though, that until the "weight of the discipline" reaches a general consensus point of high percentage, that the dissenters have to be acknowledged?

It did that years ago. Of all scientists with relevant qualifications, 97% accept that climate change is real, and that it is attributable to human causes. That's a very, very strong consensus.

NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Skeptical SCience: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
Professor John Cook, University of Queensland: https://theconversation.com/its-true-97 ... ning-14051

FFS, the science is in. The politics of the science is the issue & the "deniers or sceptics so to speak have little if any scientific credibility but do have power on their side.

If 97% of climate scientists say....then...

If 97% of Dr's & immunologists say use vaccines to immunize a population & a 3% don't who are you going to believe?

The debate should be about when, where & how do we deal with it, not whether it is happening or not.

The counter arguments are beyond ridiculous, not Stui's but the notions of a that it is the people going to lose their jobs etc That is merely tactic designed to counter the conflict of interests by big business / transnational corporations.

[stui magpie]

^

Just saying. The average punter doesn't research this stuff, they rely on mainstream media for their info.

So, to the unresearched, the climate change debate moved from global warming caused by holes on the ozone layer, to the greenhouse effect, to carbon causing climate change rather than global warming.

You can no doubt provide ample logical evidence as to why that sequence exists and provide context, but I repeat, to the average punter it's an inconsistent pattern.

nb, before you get wound up and call me names, read my sig, then read it again. I like playing devils advocate, doesn't mean the argument is invalid.

[Wokko]

^

Just saying. The average punter doesn't research this stuff, they rely on mainstream media for their info.

So, to the unresearched, the climate change debate moved from global warming caused by holes on the ozone layer, to the greenhouse effect, to carbon causing climate change rather than global warming.

You can no doubt provide ample logical evidence as to why that sequence exists and provide context, but I repeat, to the average punter it's an inconsistent pattern.

nb, before you get wound up and call me names, read my sig, then read it again. I like playing devils advocate, doesn't mean the argument is invalid.

You missed the coming Ice Age climate change 'consensus' from the 70s.

[3.14159]

Niels Bohr said...Prediction is very difficult, especially when it's about the future.
What isn't difficult to grasp is the basic law of physics that says to the more crap you dump on this planet the messier it's going get.

fwiw...
big oil, big chemical mining and 100's of large companies all have a vested interest in all this and pay scientists to urge we do nothing until even Blind Freddy can deny the over-whelming mountain of evidence...also known as "when the shit hits the fan".

^^^ Reminds me of doctors in the pay of tobacco companies telling us smoking isn't harmful.

[Tannin]

So, to the unresearched, the climate change debate moved from global warming caused by holes on the ozone layer, to the greenhouse effect, to carbon causing climate change rather than global warming.

You'd have to be terminally stupid to believe that.

1: The hole in the ozone layer has nothing whatever to do with global warming.

2: The greenhouse effect is carbon causing global warming. Always has been.

FFS, you'd have to be so stupid to believe that garballed nonsense that you'd watch the Bolt Report and read the Herald-Sun and think they both had something to do with reality. No-one is that stupid.

Err ....

Sorry. As you were.

[3.14159]

The bible teaches that the end of the world won't come from a collapse of the ocean food chains, the poles melting, warming of the planet* or over population.
It teaches that the end will come in final battle between Christians and unbelievers.
Ergo climate change is all part of god's plan, ergo... why worry about it?

[stui magpie]

^

The bible teaches lots of things.