Why I now reject climate politics nearly entirely

[fides' Jack]

On 10/13/2019 at 8:33 PM, Gary david said:

 

Not sure what the point is with this one.  I don't think anyone ever said that climate change isn't happening (at least, if they have, it's a tiny, tiny minority of people).  Even people like me have no problems saying the climate is changing - and I always have.  However, global warming is not the same thing.  And one photo without any context at all means literally nothing...

Sorry, if this is a joke, I don't get it.

[Ice_nine]

The Earth is pretty sweet. It is a great gift from God. It is profound.

I think we have lost our God-centered connection to his creation, and neo-pagan worship has rushed to fill the void. That doesn't mean respect, and dare I say, a form of reverence before nature is oh my gooooodness BLASPHEMY. I don't think it's wise to dismiss anthropomorphic climate change on these grounds.

That's why I really have reactionary movements. It's just overcompensation. yugck.

 

[fides' Jack]

On 10/23/2019 at 12:25 PM, Ice_nine said:

I don't think it's wise to dismiss anthropomorphic climate change on these grounds.

I haven't heard of anybody doing that, ever.

[Ice_nine]

5 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I haven't heard of anybody doing that, ever.

Consciously, maybe. But no one is really all that transparent to themselves. You do not believe that maybe a fear of neo-paganism in an increasingly secular world might be clouding your assessment on the matter?

Maybe not then. I don't think it's a far-fetched analysis that that's what some folks might be doing.

 

[Dogtag]

When it comes to climate change your opinion or mine doesn't matter. What is important is what climate scientists who have doctoral degrees and have published in peer review journals have to say. You can't trust your favorite politician or news network, look at the science. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[fides' Jack]

On 11/30/2019 at 8:00 PM, Dogtag said:

When it comes to climate change your opinion or mine doesn't matter. What is important is what climate scientists who have doctoral degrees and have published in peer review journals have to say. You can't trust your favorite politician or news network, look at the science. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It's impossible to know the actual science now.

And no, I don't trust any politician on this matter, or news network.  I also don't trust any supposed "science".  

This link points to an oft-cited "study" claiming that 97% of scientists agree that climate is warming and that humans have something to do with it.  3 things:

1.  Not all of the scientists in the 20+ year-old study are climate scientists.  Many of them had zero experience with any kind of climate studies.

2.  People almost always extend the actual consensus to include things that most of the scientists would specifically not agree to (according to interviews conducted of them after the study was published).  They would not all agree that humans were significantly contributing.  They would not all agree that it was possible for humans to do anything about it.  They wouldn't even agree that it was a bad thing and that we should do something about it.

3.  Environmentalism has now become a religion.  Any scientist now who publicly disavows the political standpoint of the left pretty much has their life destroyed, and that's so much anti-science that all reasonable people should reject environmentalism outright, until the point that the discussion is open enough that all sides should be heard.

On 10/28/2019 at 2:21 PM, Ice_nine said:

Consciously, maybe. But no one is really all that transparent to themselves. You do not believe that maybe a fear of neo-paganism in an increasingly secular world might be clouding your assessment on the matter?

Maybe not then. I don't think it's a far-fetched analysis that that's what some folks might be doing.

 

I think the holier a person becomes, the more they know themselves.  

I'm not afraid of neo-paganism.  I just hate it, because it offends God.  Either way, I reject it.

I've never heard anyone make the claim that the climate is not changing.  Any reasonable person admits that the climate is changing.  I've seen it change in my lifetime, as most people have.

[chrysostom]

I never thought much about climate change but after closely following - down to the minutiae - the constant misconstrual of COVID data, I have a newfound intense skepticism about scientific consensus on controversial issues including this one.

[Lea]

Oh boy, it seems there's a good lot of conspiration theorists hanging around here... living in a rather secular region, I always try to prove that being catholic goes very well with being up to date with sciences, but maybe...  

Please tell me you don't believe in the literal version of the creation in 7 days. 

[chrysostom]

When forest fires in California are blamed on climate change when annual burn acreage a century ago was higher in that state, I do not think it kooky to wonder if the politicians really know what they're talking about.

Money, peer pressure, and groupthink really do influence one's perception of reality and the choice to admit or discard datasets. No conspiracy needed.

[Lea]

11 hours ago, chrysostom said:

When forest fires in California are blamed on climate change when annual burn acreage a century ago was higher in that state, I do not think it kooky to wonder if the politicians really know what they're talking about.

Money, peer pressure, and groupthink really do influence one's perception of reality and the choice to admit or discard datasets. No conspiracy needed.

No, it's not kooky to wonder if politicians know what they're talking about. I sincerely doubt that, especially regarding climate politics. 

According to a renewed metastudy [btw one ordered by people doubting the 97% stated before] of 08/2019 on the current state of science it's 99% agreement in the essays that climate change is [at least partely] manmade. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Lea
Typo.

[fides' Jack]

On 10/7/2020 at 8:27 AM, Lea said:

No, it's not kooky to wonder if politicians know what they're talking about. I sincerely doubt that, especially regarding climate politics. 

According to a renewed metastudy [btw one ordered by people doubting the 97% stated before] of 08/2019 on the current state of science it's 99% agreement in the essays that climate change is [at least partely] manmade. 

Of course we have an impact on the climate - I would be in that 99%.  In fact, if you read my last post here carefully, you'll see that I specifically addressed that - because while I'm aware that most scientists believe that climate change is at least partly manmade, that number of consenting scientists drops very quickly when you say that humans are "significantly" responsible.  

And, as I already stated, there isn't even consensus among scientists that it's a bad thing and that we should do anything about it.

Best to stay completely clear of the mainstream media right now...

[linate]

so much for the climate skeptics here having a willingness to follow the science...

 

On 9/2/2019 at 1:55 PM, linate said:

droughts are increasing
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/climate-change-has-made-droughts-more-frequent-1900-180972087/

hurricanes are increasing. see the graph in the article. 
https://www.theguardian.com/weather/ng-interactive/2018/sep/11/atlantic-hurricanes-are-storms-getting-worse

antarctica is losing ice such that sea levels are rising

https://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

there is a strong consensus that man is the main cause of climate change
https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

more carbon dioxide isnt necessarily all that great for plants

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-basic.htm

we have more carbon than we've had for millions of years, and more than twice as much as weve had for hundreds of thousands. 

 

i'm mostly worried about drought and the loss of biodiversity. just look around. drought is increasing. it will hit third world countries the hardest. the coral reefs are dying, which are a hot bed source of biodiversity. other examples are endless. 

we can get by with flooding and hurricanes, but not the instability caused by these two things above. 

[fides' Jack]

16 hours ago, linate said:

so much for the climate skeptics here having a willingness to follow the science...

so much for the environmentalists here having a willingness to follow the science...

I'm perfectly willing to follow actual science, if you can show me some.  I'm no longer willing to follow government-funded or government-controlled or even media-controlled science - at least on the matter of climate change.

In the end, and above all things, I trust in God, so no, I'm not afraid of or worried about the climate changing at all.

[linate]

On 10/14/2020 at 12:13 PM, fides' Jack said:

so much for the environmentalists here having a willingness to follow the science...

I'm perfectly willing to follow actual science, if you can show me some.  I'm no longer willing to follow government-funded or government-controlled or even media-controlled science - at least on the matter of climate change.

In the end, and above all things, I trust in God, so no, I'm not afraid of or worried about the climate changing at all.

 

i cited a long list of well sourced info that contradicts many of your points. as far as i can tell, you simply choose to reject it to opt into some contradicting points you heard somewhere random. (read, not well sourced). 

why aren't you afraid of the droughts that the world and the USA has been having at an increasing pace? and that as i cited can be caused by global warming. this affects third world countries the worst. it even affect folks like my dad who is a farmer and is facing more droughts lately.  

don't you care about the dying coral reefs and all those other ecosystems that are dying cause of global warming? 

i cited the link that says 96% of scientists who are familiar with the matter, think man is the primary source of recent warming. why do you choose to deny it? 

 

"Among the larger sample size of author self-rated papers [...], 228 (96%) endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing most of the current global warming."

https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

[fides' Jack]

10 minutes ago, linate said:

why aren't you afraid of the droughts that the world and the USA has been having at an increasing pace?

Because I don't believe in fake science perpetuated by the government, or by any group of people who would ruin the career or the life of anyone who disagrees with them.

The reason I don't fear climate change is because ultimately, God is in control.  And I only fear God inasmuch as I deserve condemnation for my sins.  

10 minutes ago, linate said:

i cited the link that says 96% of scientists who are familiar with the matter, think man is the primary source of recent warming. why do you choose to deny it? 

I don't deny it.  You posted a link to Skeptical Science, a link that implies that something is true if it is widely accepted.

And I've already posted my opinion regarding the false 97% number (not 96%).  

And because your language here also implies a falsehood.

It is not 97% (or 96%) of scientists who are familiar with the matter.  It's 97% of the scientists they reached out to (they didn't talk to every scientist), and the consensus was that man is a source of climate change (not the primary source, and not even a significant cause). 

It would be good for the Earth to have some more co2.  Let's start raising more cattle again and make meat inexpensive so we can feed more of those in poverty.  We're too stupid to even think about the best way to take care of the Earth right now.  The best thing we can do is try to take care of each other.

[linate]

5 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Because I don't believe in fake science perpetuated by the government, or by any group of people who would ruin the career or the life of anyone who disagrees with them.

The reason I don't fear climate change is because ultimately, God is in control.  And I only fear God inasmuch as I deserve condemnation for my sins.  

I don't deny it.  You posted a link to Skeptical Science, a link that implies that something is true if it is widely accepted.

And I've already posted my opinion regarding the false 97% number (not 96%).  

And because your language here also implies a falsehood.

It is not 97% (or 96%) of scientists who are familiar with the matter.  It's 97% of the scientists they reached out to (they didn't talk to every scientist), and the consensus was that man is a source of climate change (not the primary source, and not even a significant cause). 

It would be good for the Earth to have some more co2.  Let's start raising more cattle again and make meat inexpensive so we can feed more of those in poverty.  We're too stupid to even think about the best way to take care of the Earth right now.  The best thing we can do is try to take care of each other.

 

you just ignored the quote i gave you, and misrepresented the link. here is the expanded snippet that says authors who have written on global warming, almost unanimously think man is the primary cause of warming.... 
 

Quote

Again, there's very little controversy here.  The scientific literature is quite clear that humans have caused most of the global surface warming over the past half century, as the 2013 IPCC report stated with 95% confidence.

In Cook et al. (2013), we broadened the focus beyond definitions that quantify the human contribution, because there's a consensus gap on the mere question of whether humans are causing global warming.  Nevertheless, we used the 2007 IPCC position as one of our consensus position definitions:

"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global [climate change], published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."

The IPCC position (humans causing most global warming) was represented in our categories 1 and 7, which include papers that explicitly endorse or reject/minimize human-caused global warming, and also quantify the human contribution.  Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.  Among the larger sample size of author self-rated papers in categories 1 and 7 (237 in total), 228 (96%) endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing most of the current global warming.

The self-ratings offer a larger sample size on this quantification question because of the limited real estate in a paper's abstract.  Most journals have strict word limits on their abstracts, so authors have to focus on the specifics of their research.  On the other hand, the author self-ratings are based on the full papers, which have much more real estate and are thus more likely to both take a position on the cause of global warming, and quantify the human contribution.

 

[fides' Jack]

1 minute ago, linate said:

 

you just ignored the quote i gave you, and misrepresented the link. here is the expanded snippet that says authors who have written on global warming, almost unanimously think man is the primary cause of warming.... 
 

 

These guys rely too much on the authority of so-called peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Even saying that, this article isn't putting itself on the same footing.  It's a biased reading of the conglomeration of other scientific studies.

The comments at the bottom of your article are more interesting, and more revealing.  There, even the proponents of the climate religion agree that one of these 97% consensus findings was based on a small group of 77 scientists, and not the purported ~5,000.  And even several proponents find that Cook et al. (2013) is a very inaccurate study, anyway.

Then there's the appalling fact that this article relies heavily on the IPCC.  No Thanks!  I trust them as much as I trust the WHO, and other Communist-China-owned "international" commissions, which is zero.  All of these groups clearly have an agenda.  

The article also talks about melting ice.  That's been debunked for several years: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses.  

I don't buy it.  The evidence out there isn't overwhelmingly persuasive.  There's too much politics in it.  There's too much idolatry in it.  There's too many lies in it.  There's probably some truth in it, too, but you'll never find it without losing your soul.

[Lea]

21 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

It is not 97% (or 96%) of scientists who are familiar with the matter.  It's 97% of the scientists they reached out to (they didn't talk to every scientist), and the consensus was that man is a source of climate change (not the primary source, and not even a significant cause). 

It would be good for the Earth to have some more co2.  Let's start raising more cattle again and make meat inexpensive so we can feed more of those in poverty.  We're too stupid to even think about the best way to take care of the Earth right now.  The best thing we can do is try to take care of each other.

I'm sorry to say this, but it seems like you are lacking the knowlegde of basic scientific methods. Meta-studies nowadays are based on data analyzed by algorithms designed for that, not by persons deciding by sympathy who of their colleagues to ask and who not. 

And nope, you don't need to talk to theologians reading patristic literature regarding a topic in life sciences. If you are talking climate science, you are going to refer to geoscientists, environmentalists, etc, maybe also agroscientists or MDs for more specific research linked to the issue.

 

Last but not least speaking as someone pursuing a Masters in Environmental Engineering it would certainly NOT be good to "have some more CO2". But maybe you won't believe me anyway as I study at a public university... hoping not to lose my soul in it. 

[linate]

he seems to reason "i dont like their conclusions, therefore they are not credible". instead of "here are reasons they are not credible, therefore i dont like their conclusions". 

[fides' Jack]

21 minutes ago, linate said:

he seems to reason "i dont like their conclusions, therefore they are not credible". instead of "here are reasons they are not credible, therefore i dont like their conclusions". 

I'm not doing either of those things.  I don't trust this, specifically:

1 hour ago, Lea said:

Meta-studies nowadays are based on data analyzed by algorithms designed for that

The "science" of today is statistics, which is not science.

 

There's no chance I'm going to change either of your minds, so I'm not going to try.  Nor was I trying to change your mind before.  

Have a good day.