121–130 of 247 posts
Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate sceptic is the established term.
It is not as clear cut as that at all. Wikipedia has a page on Denial.. What is "established" is part of the debate too and obviously it is in some deniers interest to instead label themself sceptic. Apparently there has been a debate about this: https://ncse.com/library-resource/why-is-it-called-denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
What part do climate change deniers deny? Is it that the mean global temperature is going up, or the idea that it is going up because of human activities? I thought it was the latter.
Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…
Since you do not like the term "climate deniers", what's your proposal for an appropriate and respectful term or definition to aggregate the people that believe that climate change is not happening?
Basically, if we all stop running our air conditioner, it isn’t going to have any significant effect on long term global temperatures. Basically we object to the idea that lowering standards of living is a meaningful cure for rising temperatures. Humans absolutely cause pollution, nobody “denies” that and most of us care deeply about actual pollution. But once CO2 started being considered some kind of pollutant, the environmental movement essentially jumped the shark in my view. CO2 is just as much a pollutant as oxygen but it is being treated by politicians as if it were benzene.
> We can completely ignore the fact that over the years the average location of all the contributing stations has moved slightly northward to colder territory[.] Woah, that's not something I'd considered. Are weather stations that contribute to NOAA operated by the volunteer public, kind of like Weather Underground? Either way, that's pretty interesting that there's a distinct northward migration in at least one "dem…
The population has been migrating south. Why are the stations migrating north? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_Stat...
1) automated stations and satellite communication making it much easier/cheaper to sample remote locations
2) use of whole-globe numerical weather models which require complete initial conditions, even for regions where nobody much cares about the output
3) increased interest in climate research
would lead to a greatly increased number of Alaskan stations operated by NOAA (and of course corresponding moves by other national agencies)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think you actually understood it. Its point is that the temperature really is rising, and you have to resort to tricks to show that it’s not.
I think my comment has been badly misinterpreted given the down voting. I’ve reread my post and I’m not sure why it has been so misinterpreted. Clearly I failed to convey my intent. Obviously the blog post is about how one can construct a misleading graph by cherry picking data. The blog shows how one can cleverly display data to reinforce a prior belief. In this case the prior belief is that temperature is not risin…
“Recently, several times I’ve run into people tell me that temps in the U.S. are rising and I’ve wondered why they make such a claim.”
As written, your comment sounds like you don’t understand why someone would say temperatures are rising, and ascribe it to confirmation bias rather than climate change.
It's despicable, isn't it? Like, there are climate change deniers that are overly-skeptical or gullible and buy into the mountains of misinformation. And then there are those like Steve Goddard who sit down every day and work their asses off creating said misinformation (check his twitter). Actively manipulating and cherrypicking data to deceive for personal gain (whether it be paychecks, political favor, whatever).…
Want convince 99% of America that Climate Change needs immediate action? Address the following points (without vitriol, deception or animosity): I'm not saying all these are ironclad facts, but this is what you're up against: Alarmists have been wrong many times in the past. Cooling. Warming. 10 foot sea rise by 1980. No, 1990. No, 2000. No 2030, for sure this time. Alarmists have been caught manipulating data, for t…
This is where things get wrong. Previously warming and cooling has happened over thousands of years. What we see now is something different. A couple hundred years is "instant" in this context.
Everything looks extreme when looked at a very small scale...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same reason for the vitriol against anti-vax. These are people who are claiming to know better than the vast majority of the scientific community (seriously, it's something like 99%+), despite having little to no expertise in the field. Multiple independent governments, thousands of peer reviewed studies across multiple disciplines, data collected from satellites, billions of dollars across decades of research... but…
All this may be true, but appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy. You can't just shame people into believing something they don't understand because "smarter" people believe it. It's a shameful failure of communication more than anything else. And I don't understand why people like you don't understand that.
The data are publicly available and the papers relatively accessible. The dismissal isn’t because climate deniers reject the mainstream. It’s because they reject the mainstream without trying to understand it.
Honest question: Why such vitriol against "climate deniers?" The term "climate denier" is loading with negative connotation just on it's face, and it's rarely used in isolation in an otherwise respectful way. There will always be people that disagree with you about something. Some are honest, some are not. Why be an asshole and treat people poorly and disrespectfully? That makes you as bad or worse than them IMHO. Ev…
First, most of the credentialed ones are funded by fossil fuels industries. Either directly or via shells to obscure sources. And so their objectivity is at least questionable. Second, there's support from public relations firms, also clearly funded by fossil fuels industries. It grew out of the "smokers rights" campaign in the early 80s, which was funded by the tobacco industry. And indeed, the "climate-change denia…
It is interesting to note that not only is the campaign a clone, but it is in part headed by the same people [1] who were involved in the tobacco business.