"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[Mysturji]

Is this supposed to be some sort of attempt to provoke me?
What do you think is going on in the following exchange?
Seriously. I am genuinely curious what your perception of this exchange is. Particularly the end bit. I include the preceeding post for context.

Again with the misrepresentations.
Top Tip: When you're trying to convince people about the truth of your claims, dishonesty doesn't help.
Neither does an air of smug superiority.

I was going to say more, but the more I think about that , the more I think what's the point?
I'm certain that I will be misrepresented as "that kind of kaffir", and that arguments I never made - and have denied making time and again - will be thoroughly debunked, so I just hope the audience has been paying attention.
I wanted to present my argument. I have done so, and it has not been trounced. There was one polite disagreement regarding my interpretation of some of the evidence, but the complete lack of debunking of what I actually said indicates to me that my argument has merit. I have got some food for thought out of this, and I will chew it. I hope I have provided some as well.
So fine, put words in my mouth. I've said my bit. I'm feral OT, and there are entendres lying around, un-doubled. I'm off to the pub.

from your OP [emphasis mine]:

Could that perhaps be because - besides the fact that the weather has always and (for the foreseeable future) WILL always be beyond our control - if we (as a species) were able to do anything to stop it (if indeed it needs stopping

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9094



sorry to be so dishonest, cruel and unrepresentative of your words Mysturji, perhaps i was mistaken when i thought you were talking about weather?

See what I mean?

Yes, you were mistaken.
I'm sorry but no, I wasn't talking about the weather. I've been talking about Human nature.
"You can't save the planet because people are selfish bastards and they won't let you." Ring any bells?

Just one ludicrous example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... andle.html
Which is apparantly being given serious consideration:
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/new ... 5982215.jp
If they weren't serious, it would be laughable.

You seem to be obsessing about minutae. When I said that the weather was beyond our control, that was not my argument. It was a simple statement of fact. A starting point from which to proceed.
I had thought - given the nature of the relationship between "weather" and "climate" (so succinctly put by Fact-Man), and the obvious difference between the concepts of "control" and "influence" - that no further clarification of this simple statement of fact would be needed... but hey, this is Rationalia: I'm used to a certain amount of pedantry, so I was quite happy to clarify - and clarify I did:

"We cannot control the weather (or the climate).
We influence the weather (and the climate).
We affect the weather (and the climate)."

The essential meaning of the original statement has not changed. I have just made explicit what I had considered to be implicit in the original version: I made the statement explicitly more inclusive about what we cannot control (try controlling the climate without first controlling the weather), and more specific about what we actually are doing.

I notice you quoted that same clarification in one of your earlier posts. Did you read it, or was it just so much copypasta? If you read it, did you understand it, or did your eyes glaze over as you read the first sentence, and you thought "Pfffft! He's a denialist. He doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. I know what he's going to say"?
You quoted the clarified version once, yet you continue to quote the earlier, unclarified version, apparently for the specific purpose of picking that particular nit (again). Unless of course, it is your intention to assert (again) that we can control the weather and the climate, in which case I believe the traditional response is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I'm sorry that Fact-Man's definition of climate - upon which we both agree - contains the word "weather", and that you have failed to challenge him over this "non sequitur" (presumably because you don't consider him such an easy target). Pity. That could have been fun to watch.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to keep on nit-picking my OP, which was written in anger as a response to what I perceived as arrogance on someone else's part (You can't just march in and take over. where do you think we are, Poland?), rather than addressing any of the subsequent posts in which my position was clarified and the nature of, and the reason for my scepticism were explained - presumably because you considered the OP an easier target for your derision than my actual argument.
There seems to be a lot of it about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8571347.stm
Apparently, some people are arrogant, and some other people don't like it.
That's Human nature for you.

I'm sorry, but I'm not disputing the science. The climate is changing and Human activities are making a significant contribution to that change.
I'm sorry that you apparently find this such a difficult concept to understand: That someone could be sceptical about certain aspects of the whole climate change issue without disputing the science: without being a "denialist".
That must be terribly confusing for you. Please feel free to go have a lie down.

@Fact-Man: Earlier, the word "denialosphere" was being thrown about and nobody batted an eyelid, including myself. We all know that there are liars who deny the evidence.
But when I made an offhand suggestion for a name for the liars on the other side of the fence, you pretty much accused me of trolling. I think that comment was misunderstood. I was not trolling, and I was certainly not casting dispersions on anyone in particular. I was referring to this sort of thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm
(Not the first time we've seen that sort of thing, is it?)
I hope that clears up that particular point.

I'm sorry, but I'm not disputing the science. The climate is changing and Human activities are making a significant contribution to that change.

thank you

...and...?

...and...?

and have a nice day!

[Luis Dias]

He ran off. Leave it

[Mysturji]

He ran off. Leave it

Yes, and that's part of the problem isn't it?

[Reverend Blair]

Er, how is somebody not being here at your convenience "running off?" I'm pretty sure that most of us have things to attend to in real life.

Oh well, here's a song:

[Mysturji]

Er, how is somebody not being here at your convenience "running off?" I'm pretty sure that most of us have things to attend to in real life.

Nothing to do with convenience. Just looks like a hit & run is all.

[Reverend Blair]

Er, he seemed polite enough to me, bidding you a nice day and all. I think he'll be back when he has the time. Perhaps you should listen to that "10000 Chinese" song again.

In the meantime, try a pinch.

[Surendra Darathy]

Perhaps you should listen to that "10000 Chinese" song again.

I kinda like that song.

What's going on in this thread since I poked my nose in last? Are we still trying to figure out what's wrong with politics?

Not only is climate changing, but as it gets warmer, it gets harder and harder to nail jello to a wall. People get too hot under the collar.

[Reverend Blair]

I kinda like that song.

Yeah, me too. I think it's a pretty good expression of...well, something.

What's going on in this thread since I poked my nose in last? Are we still trying to figure out what's wrong with politics?

I dunno. I mean I come here, and I post shit, but I'm really not sure what's happening with the thread. It's kind of like an NDP convention, but without being able to watch the gay people and the unionists and the old people pretend to like each other while their children wander off and get stoned together. I guess as long as no one utters the phrase, "Brethren and Sisteren" we'll be okay. As my grandmother said, "Don't call me a sisteren. That's just a hole in the basement, full of water."

Anyway, Piscator mentioned the tragedy of the commons a while back, and I think that might be a pretty good direction to take things. That's really what environmentalism is really all about.

In the case of global warming, it becomes a global commons.

I have to go buy some smokes and see if any engine blocks cracked over the winter, but I'd be interested to see some thoughts on all of that.

In the meantime, here's a song:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMQdtyot ... re=related[/youtube]

[Surendra Darathy]

In the case of global warming, it becomes a global commons.

But that's the whole deal, innit? Climate is global, weather is local. Unless we really go all Cretaceous after awhile.

Piscator was on the right track, bringing in ocean circulation and albedo. Which gets me back to my advocacy of volcanoes.

"Commons" is a very human thing. After humans are extinct, no more "commons". Nobody to lament anything that is extinct.

[piscator]

and the time thing is important too, because it's not just about us, and our new cars, and the weather today, and our 5-year marketing plans- it has a lot more to do with generations coming along behind us

if we rape the Commons for our short term benefit, our great grandkid's grandkids will still be trying to play the shit hand we dealt them

and while i'm sure many of them will find some solace tooling around through the brown countryside in their red RX29s, shiny and glazed with the infrequent rain, as they zoom past the white chickens on their way to a meeting with their accountants....they'll still be anteing up for the sins of their apathetic forebears

[Reverend Blair]

Okay, nothing cracked. There's one battery I'm not too keen to hook the booster cables up to though. Also, the neighbour-boy seems to be delving into psychedelics and guns. I'm thinking I should teach him to write...

But that's the whole deal, innit? Climate is global, weather is local. Unless we really go all Cretaceous after awhile.

No, or maybe yes. let's go with "could be."

The weather being local is the main problem. Hell, I live in Manitoba. A warmer climate means my heating bills go down and my yearly span of finding excuses to pee outside expands. To my urban friends, the warmer climate looks pretty good. The weather is getting better.

Okay, the lighter drawer is empty, and the toaster seems to have some tilt/safety mechanism on it. Hang on a minute. Okay, I found a match. As long as I never let this cigarette go out, it'll be okay.

To my rural friends it mean less hay, lower grain yields, and less water for their livestock though.


Intersstingly, my rural friends are heavily invested in denialism, while my urban friends are concerned.

That split matches an understanding of the commons more closely than it matches the personal interests of those involved.

Piscator was on the right track, bringing in ocean circulation and albedo. Which gets me back to my advocacy of volcanoes.

That's kind of like advocating for zombies though...

and the time thing is important too, because it's not just about us, and our new cars, and the weather today, and our 5-year marketing plans- it has a lot more to do with generations coming along behind us

See i have a problem with that from the outset. It is about us. Fuck it, it's all about me. Me, Damn it! Fuck the rest of you. I got mine and I'm keeping it. What are you, the people in fucking grey? Jesus, you're after my snowmobile aren't you? You fuckers want to take away my right to get drunk and drive my sled at eighty miles an hour. I'll bet you'd even stop me from clubbing a moose, wouldn't you? Well, fuck you, I've eaten every one of those moose and seal meat tastes just like pussy. Fuckin' seals, out there polluting the ice and eating our cod, and I don't mean that in a bad way...well, you know.

The preceding rant was brought to you by the Redneck Friends of Reverend Blair.

Sorry, that's what we're up against. I do count people like that among my friends. Hell, I've eaten moose roasts they've given me. And taken their sleds out for a spin or two. It doesn't change the fact that the are fun to drink beer with.

It is very much about us though. They know my viewpoint, and I know theirs and I've never turned down a moose roast. Seal meat tastes like oily dog vomit though...just sayin', and don't ask.

Here's the deal though, this isn't about future generations. They told us that back in the 1980's. Since then we've seen huge changes due to global warming and come to recognize some of the past changes. We've also bred and raised two more generations. I'm not sure which of those generations anybody here is from, but the future is pretty much jamming things up your ass right now, and not in a good way.

And now I have to leave due to personal obligations and shit.

If somebody could remind me to finish this tomorrow, I'd appreciate it.

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, and I'm back.

I was saying that global warming is no longer about future generations. It likely is for you baby boomers and older people. It might be for that weird little half-generation that followed, of which I'm a member. For the children of the baby boomers on down though, it is very much about them. We've already seen some pretty drastic changes, and we're seeing more changes more quickly all of the time. It's not terribly obvious where most of us live yet, and won't be for a while. It will be by 2050 though, and from the children of the boomers on down, they can expect to have to live through some pretty tough times because of global warming. More than that, they can expect to face those tough times with very few resources, because the generations before them will have pretty much trashed the place. That's two generations of people who are young adults right now though, and they will be affected directly in their lifetimes.

Their best hope is to establish the idea of the commons as a political force as quickly as possible. If there is a commons, then they can protect it. The political forces in power right now have no interest in a commons though. In fact, they have a vested interest in destroying the parts of a collective commons that still remain. So those in line to inherit this mess need to become politically active quickly enough to counter the worst instincts their elders.

[piscator]

god damn i love me!

[macdoc]

for China it's RIGHT NOW!!!!!

Here come the consequences....

Drought in China caused by climate change: experts
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2010-03-28 20:24

BEIJING - Meteorologists have attributed the once-in-a-century drought parching southwest China to climate change.

The drought has left more than 18 million residents and 11.7 million head of livestock suffering drinking-water shortages over a region encompassing the southwestern provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and the municipality of Chongqing, data from the Ministry of Civil Affairs showed.

"The direct reason for the drought is light rain and high temperatures," Ren Fuming, a leading expert at China's National Climate Center, told the latest edition of Outlook Weekly, a well-known magazine in China.

Ren's opinion was echoed by Zhang Peiqun, also a meteorologist with the center.

Zhang said the rainfall in worst-hit Yunnan since September last year is the lowest in about 50 years while the average temperature since the beginning of winter is the highest.

"The decreased rainfall during the rainy season led to less water in store and high temperatures resulted in greater evaporation, directly causing the severe drought," Zhang said.

Zhang said the reasons underlying it were the complicated ocean currents and anomalous atmospheric circulation.

Zhang said the lingering cold air mass that formed last September in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau had fenced off the warm and moist currents from the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal, and at the same time the cold air from the north has had difficulty reaching the Yunnan-Guizhou plateau hinterland.

"The cold and warm currents can't converge to produce rain, so there is little rain," Zhang said.

Sun Honglie, director of the national expert committee on climate change, told the magazine that he was inclined to believe that the drought was a result of anomalous atmospheric currents.

"It is not an environmental or ecological problem," he said. "But the drought is bound to have an impact on the ecological system."

Another expert, Chen Yiyu, an academic at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, also said the year has seen anomalous climate conditions globally and that the drought in China is part of the phenomenon.

Globally, climate-related natural disasters have climbed from less than 50 a year in the 1950s to between 350 and 450 a year in the 2000s. In 2009, extreme weather events affected 55 million people around the world, according to figures released by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010 ... 653182.htm

[Mysturji]

Er, he seemed polite enough to me, bidding you a nice day and all.

Do you really think so? Then you're more easily fooled than I thought.
Did you you stick to science & politics back at RDF, or did you ever cross virtual swords with any fundies? I did, and I've seen these tactics before, many times.
I wrote a fairly long and carefully constructed post, in which I felt it necessary to state the bleeding obvious in an effort to correct previous misrepresentations of my position, and to prevent future ones, and he replies with a quote-mine of one of those statements of the obvious, tagging a "Thank you" and nothing else on the end.
That "reply" looks specifically designed to appear to the casual observer as though I have just conceeded defeat on that particular point, and that he is being magnanimous in victory, when in fact you and I (and pistacor) all know that that has been my position all along.
That's the kind of behaviour I'd expect from a fundy.
Then, when asked to elaborate, instead of answering the question, he continues the pretense with a flippant "Have a nice day."
That's just twattish.

I might add, Rev, that after 8 pages, you are still the only one that has even acknowledged, let alone addressed my actual argument, and Fact-Man the only other major contributor who has directly responded to my posts without misrepresenting them.
Pistacor didn't start it, but he has apparently chosen to pick up the baton and run with it. After so much time, and so many corrections on my part, I can only assume that the continuing misrepresentations are deliberate.

---

So, Pistacor... Thank you.
I sincerely mean that. If you bother to actually read this, and are able to understand it, you might even appreciate why.
Those of you who were paying attention during the first few pages of this thread will remember the primary basis for my scepticism regarding certain aspects of the climate change debate. For those who came in late, and for those who were not paying attention, it is here:

SOME people (not all) seem a little too cocksure about climatology's predictive powers. (And even that issue is much less about the actual science than it is about the arrogance of some of the people involved.)

Since - after 8 pages - pistacor has still not addressed my argument, I thank him for demonstrating its validity so effectively.
I am of course referring to arrogance. The sort of arrogance that can cause someone to spend a not inconsiderable amount of time and effort deliberately misrepresenting someone else's position, ignoring most of their words and twisting others, while thinking that nobody will notice because they're so much smarter than everyone else. (By "everyone else", obviously I mean non-scientists. You know... the ignorant masses - "peasants with pitchforks".)

Previously, no less than three times in this thread my position was misrepresented: here, here and (just as I thought I was actually, finally starting to get through...) here.

And no less than three times, I objected: here, here and here.
And I have tried to set the record straight an additional two times: here and here.

Once can easily be attributed to an error.
Twice seems careless, but could be due to a genuine misunderstanding.
Three times, and it's deliberate.
And now it has happened a fourth time:

I'm sorry, but I'm not disputing the science. The climate is changing and Human activities are making a significant contribution to that change.

thank you

There's a quote about playing chess with pigeons that springs to mind.

I must admit that the "starting to get through" post I linked to above caused a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. Eventually though, I decided that it was so incongruous with the rest of pistacor's posts and this thread in general that I had to discount it, except to regard it as conclusive proof that pistacor has been dishonest - though there is no evidence to indicate which position he really holds.

I have made this request before, to specific people, and my requests were ignored. Now I politely make the same request again - to anyone and everyone who wants to, for whatever reason. Please check for yourself:
Please search my posts in this thread, and try to find any statement I myself have made which contradicts the science of climate change, or where I deny that it is happening or that Human activities are contributing to it. If you find any such statement posted by me, please provide a link to it. Please search thoroughly. I really don't think you will find one. The closest I have ever come to saying anything of the sort is to say (in various ways) that the future is unknown, and there may perhaps be factors that have not yet been taken into consideration. My reasons for this reservation about the future are that unlike some, I am not so arrogant as to think that I can predict the future with 100% accuracy, and I recognise that science is by definition a learning process, and that we're still learning.
Nor am I arrogant enough to claim the ability to control the weather, unlike some. Yet when I asked for evidence to support this bald assertion, the request was ignored. I have asked many times for evidence to support things that people have said (mainly about what they said I had supposedly said) . Those requests have all been ignored.
Perhaps they thought that no-one would notice.
Or maybe it's just hit-and-run cowardice.

I know I got off to a bad start in this thread. I got angry, I was rude and I made errors (mainly of judgement, including allowing myself to be goaded), and I have admitted those errors and apologised where I thought it appropriate. Apart from those posts for which I have admitted errors, and for which I have apologised, I stand by every word I have written in this thread - including this post.
Would that all of my opponents had displayed such integrity.
I am not expecting an apology for pistacor's mendacious misrepresentations of my posts - not after he has displayed such arrogance - nor would I particularly want one as it would be extremely unlikely to be sincere (rather like his "thanks" above). But one would have thought that he would at least be man enough to acknowledge his errors - however innocent he might pretend them to be.

The level of arrogance, mendacity and cowardice I have encountered in this thread is staggering. Especially considering the motivation supposedly behind it.
Lying for Jesus I can understand (sort of), but lying for science?
Shame.
Because who cares when a fundy gets caught and discredited for lying for Jesus? It's not as if he was arguing for anything important.
People who behave like that in the name of science are (IMHO) a bigger threat to the world than China India and McDonalds combined.
Because the arrogance alienates people just when you really need them on your side, the lies discredit the science (if they lied about that, what else are they lying about?), and the cowardice means that it is unlikely to change.

[sarcasm]But wait! I forgot!
There's nothing to worry about: We can control the weather.
And since Climate is the average weather over a minimum period of 30 years, that means we can control the climate as well.
So all we need to do is stop climate change.
By 2016.
Without the world's co-operation.
Piece of cake.
Though why the world wouldn't want to co-operate on such an import and and noble effort, I can't possibly imagine.
Wait a minute... Yes I can![/sarcasm]
Good luck with that.

But just to show there's no hard feelings, I leave you with this: