Climate change thread #2



  • Maybe this gets immediately deleted given the last thread got locked, but its too amazing not to share, and has been doing the rounds on social media.
     
    To quote the article, it's amazing how much people who have no understanding of climate science at all keep saying "show me data!" after ignoring all data.Then after being shown data, the next argument is "its all fake and manipulated".
     
    Aussie posters: who is Malcolm Roberts? Why is he on your TV? This is equal parts frightening and hilarious.https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts

    Q&A smackdown: Brian Cox brings graphs to grapple with Malcolm Roberts

    One Nation senator-elect asks repeatedly for ‘empirical data’ – and the celebrity physicist has plenty at hand

    ‘I brought the graph’: Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts debate climate change on Q&A

    Michael Slezak

    @MikeySlezak

    email

    Monday 15 August 2016 21.50 BST Last modified on Tuesday 16 August 201603.25 BST

    Share on LinkedIn
    Share on Google+

    Comments 3,367

    Save for later

    The celebrity physicist Brian Cox came prepared to the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night with graphs, ready to counter claims by his co-panellist, the climate denier and Australian senator-elect Malcolm Roberts.
    Roberts, one of four senators elected from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, took the first opportunity to espouse long-refuted climate-denialist claims, including that warming stopped more than 20 years ago, starting the so-called “hiatus” or “pause”.
    But Cox produced a graph of global surface temperatures of the past century and immediately debunked the myth, pointing out it is a misunderstanding caused by looking at a small sample, starting from an unusually warm year two decades ago.

    Cox didn’t stop there. “Also, secondly, I’ve brought another graph. It is correlated with that, which is the graph that shows the CO2 emissions parts per million in.”
    Viewers on Twitter joined in. When Roberts argued that sea level rises had been “entirely natural and normal”, a number of people posted graphs showing the steep rises.

    View image on Twitter

    Follow
    John Englart EAM @takvera

    #qanda Roberts is wrong. Latest mean global #sealevelrise to end of 2014 chart by CSIRO http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html â€¦
    1:26 PM - 15 Aug 2016 Â· Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Roberts repeatedly said he wanted to see “the empirical data”. But when the data appeared to refute what he said, he argued that scientists had conspired to manipulate it.
    “The data has been corrupted,” he said at one point, arguing that Nasa and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology had manipulated data to make warming look unusual. That led to questioning about whether he was sceptical that Nasa landed people on the moon, which Roberts denied.

    Follow
    Katie Mack @AstroKatie

    It's amazing how much people who have no understanding of climate science at all keep saying "show me data!" after ignoring all data. #QandA
    1:16 PM - 15 Aug 2016



  • He's a senator. Awesome aye?
    He's also a sovereign citizen.
    He's a nut.



  • Context: he's a Federal Sensor by dint of our fucked up system here.
    He received 77 primary votes. No, that's not a typo, or a percentage. Seventy-seven. The number less than seventy-eight.
    Because of our party senate system, he got in.
    Anyway, he's a fucked in the head fucking mental midget fuck head of fucking epic proportions.
    Still, I'm glad you brought this up Tdub, because it dovetails nicely into this:http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/the-dodgy-academic-journals-publishing-antivaxxers-and-other-crappy-science-20160817-gquu3z.html
    The dodgy academic journals publishing anti-vaxxers and other 'crappy science'
    ...
    Fraudsters operating largely from India and other parts of Asia have been posing as academic publishers, charging academics thousands of dollars to publish research in their bogus journals.
    The dark art of the booming black market is to dupe academics into submitting their research for a fee of up to $3000 a paper.
    ...
    The exploitative industry was exposed online by Jeffrey Beall, academic librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver. 
    Mr Beall, who archives a list of predatory journals on his website, said the black market had worrying implications for the quality of scientific research.
    "The victim is science itself," he said. "Unvetted research is being published bearing the window dressing of scientific publications."
    Peter Bentley, a higher education expert from tertiary think tank the LH Martin Institute, said the pressure to reach academic publishing quotas was driving the industry. 
    ...

    Etcetera



  • The look on Cox's face when Roberts said "Nasa" when asked who faked the data....
     
    It was like seeing it actually dawn on him how stupid the person he was debating was.



  • Yeah he'd kind of made the first mistake of being on Q&A: assume everyone there isn't a mouth-breather.
    The ABC should just have scientists on, week after week. Much better viewing than the train wreck politics show it's turned into.



  • The look on Cox's face when Roberts said "Nasa" when asked who faked the data....



  • It was like the non verbal equivilent of "You fucking what? I must have misheard that..."
     
    Cox is quite disarming in that he comes across so natural its easy to forget he's really switched on. His TV shows are great at keeping me engaged & giving me a vague feeling that I understand some of what he said & am definately smarter now.
     
    It would make a lot more sense to have on scientists, the problem would be finding one to take the opposite view. Wouldn't really be good telly to have 4 scientists going "yeah, this is happening, we are doing it"



  • I am just going to save that to my desktop in case this thread goes the way of the other one...



  • I am just going to save that to my desktop in case this thread goes the way of the other one...

    It will.



  • It will.

    Counting down until Winger gets here 😉



  • It would make a lot more sense to have on scientists, the problem would be finding one to take the opposite view. Wouldn't really be good telly to have 4 scientists going "yeah, this is happening, we are doing it"

    People from different fields would be great. Like an astrophysicist, climate scientist, maybe someone from an engineering discipline



  • Counting down until Winger gets here 😉

    Yep , the party doesn't really start till he's here.



  • Yeah he'd kind of made the first mistake of being on Q&A: assume everyone there isn't a mouth-breather.
    The ABC should just have scientists on, week after week. Much better viewing than the train wreck politics show it's turned into.

    Remember a few years ago, it was excellent viewing every week. They had experts in a number of fields, and no more than two token politicians, who i swear were set up to look stupid. Or they had a couple of the more intelligent entertainers on who could at least make watchable comments. Then just before the previous election the host seemed to disappear up his own ass, and started to set the narrative, spending nearly as much time talking as the guests. And we got more politicians, and they would just spend the hour slagging each other off. And the crowd got more left, and more smug. And the show pretty much sucked from there.



  • So they placed a scientist against a politician and people are impressed/amazed/surprised/amused the scientists kicked his ass on science?
     
    A more impressive debate would have been a debate between 2 experts. I think someone said that earlier.
    This debate didn't apparently prove anything except that the politician is a fuckwit, this thread should have been titled.
    'Moron poltiican'



  • A more impressive debate would have been a debate between 2 experts. I think someone said that earlier.

    On climate change it would have looked much the same.



  • And the crowd got more left, and more smug.
    I think more the latter. The crowd, given the filming locations, were probably always left of centre. Just that the way politics have gone the last few years, the smugness and shouting gets louder.
    Some of the questions a year or two back were genuine curiosity, or sought understanding. Now it's just people making a statement and pretending there was a question mark at the end.
    The time under Abbott's 1950s government probably didn't help.



  • On climate change it would have looked much the same.

    Oh right.. because the science is settled....



  • Maybe this gets immediately deleted given the last thread got locked, but its too amazing not to share, and has been doing the rounds on social media.

    Maybe not "immediately" - I mean, it'd take some pretty serious swimming against the current to... what? oh...

    Oh right.. because the science is settled....



  • Oh right.. because the science is settled....

    I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.



  • I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.

    I would love to discuss it, but it is just a pointless exercise. Look at post 18 as a reason why. A discussion cannot be had on this without it turning into a shit fest if anyone posts even a view slightly against the climate change is a disaster narrative.
    Even the words used to discuss the various sides show the toxicity of the debate.. Climate Change deniers? Climate Change alarmists? If someone uses either of those terms, you know they are a zealot, not a person who believes in science.
     
    But I do agree that thread is likely to be locked. People just cant play nicely on this topic.



  • My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.

    That will make it difficult to measure if no-one is around 😉 Or can we do it remotely from Mars? :biggrin:
     
     
    In any case, on the same show referenced in this discussion (Q&A) a few months ago, Neil deGrasse Tyson summed it up fairly well when asked what he thought about climate science - I paraphrase this from my poor memory:
     
     
    It isn't my area of specialty. However, with the kind of training and education those scientists have undertaken, and when they're getting their findings and data peer-reviewed*, I'm inclined to agree with their assessment.
     
     
    That works for me. Considering those peer reviews are done by other scientists, and getting them to agree to things isn't always easy, it makes sense. I believe TeWaio is a researcher, and in climate studies (?), hence his exasperation in the original post.
     
    I believe TeWaio is a researcher, and in climate studies (?), hence his exasperation in the original post. He has probably been involved in a bit of peer review and had figures grilled for any possible inaccuracy... or done the same himself 😉
     
     
     
    Science is rarely, if ever, "settled". Science is a systematic study process - observation and experiment - that is iterative by nature. New data comes in, discoveries are made, the course changes, and there is adaptation.
     
    Iteration and re-evaluation are critical, particularly in climate science. When temperature records are being broken with regularity, sometimes the models need rapid re-assessment to keep up.
     
     
    Critics of climate change science will purposely throw out anything on the smallest inaccuracies. Even if every model is pointing in the same direction, but doesn't quite nail the trend line as a group, and even if it was expected percentage of inaccuracy.



  • I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.

    There is near universal agreement from suitably qualified individuals that the earth is getting warmer.
    Those same suitably qualified individuals are in consensus that anthropogenic activities are either driving or accelerating the warming effect.
    There is discussion surrounding the impact of the warming as determined by the computer modelling. Particularly given the discrepancies between measured effects and predictions. Also with the range of predictions. It is intellectually dishonest to point to a worst case scenario and state that because it's wrong, all models are wrong and hence the whole thing is a load of shit.
    There are documented issues with a number of the models, but that's the point of ongoing research to understand the interactions between all the components of our climate.
    Then we have to deal with the false equivalence of those seeking to understand the differences with being climate deniers or skeptics. They add nothing to the debate and should be ignored.
     
    Even if the earth was warming regardless of human impact, the problem is we're magnifying the change.



  • The biggest problem Nick is the hysteria created by people like Flannery, Gore et al and the astonishing CO2 pumping lifestyles these people lead. If the world is truly going to hell in a handbasket why aren't these people doing what they tell everyone else to do? If everyone consumed the way they do, the earth would have no resources left. How can you justify flying around the world on a private jet to give speeches on climate change? With all these climate junkets going on is it really necessary for all these people to be there? 99.9999% of them will have nothing to do with any agreement being reached.
    So (a) you have predictions proving to be total bullshit (see Flannery), and (b)you have people with carbon footprints the size of continents preaching to others to reduce theirs while making shitloads of cash in the process.
    The whole process has been totally corrupted and that is totally self-inflicted, not something that can be blamed on "deniers". That btw shows the depths to which this socalled debate has dropped. The use of the term denier is an obvious attempt to equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers. That again says everything about this "debate".



  • shoots away to look up anthropogenic
     
    a-ha!  Caused by humans. Lucky I looked as I assumed it meant the exact opposite



  • There is near universal agreement from suitably qualified individuals that the earth is getting warmer.
    Those same suitably qualified individuals are in consensus that anthropogenic activities are either driving or accelerating the warming effect.
    There is discussion surrounding the impact of the warming as determined by the computer modelling. Particularly given the discrepancies between measured effects and predictions. Also with the range of predictions. It is intellectually dishonest to point to a worst case scenario and state that because it's wrong, all models are wrong and hence the whole thing is a load of shit.
    There are documented issues with a number of the models, but that's the point of ongoing research to understand the interactions between all the components of our climate.
    Then we have to deal with the false equivalence of those seeking to understand the differences with being climate deniers or skeptics. They add nothing to the debate and should be ignored.
     
    Even if the earth was warming regardless of human impact, the problem is we're magnifying the change.

    Most of the post I agree with and will not bother quibbling over the bits I do not. But the bolded bit I find interesting. You are correct that  there is are discrepancies, the models are never correct, not even usually close. There is an argument, (the majority agree with) that climate change is happening and man is to blame. However there is a vocal and quite militant group that shout very loudly that the science is settled. It is not. There might be theories, even strong ones, but the arrogance and sheer reiigous zealotry of screeching that the science is settled.. I find annoying. Add the fact that HUGE wedges of cash are at stake, that politicians love taxes.. and the hole thing is a fucking mess. The reason I get annoyed is because I think logic and reason are important, the publics trust in scientists is important, and that trust is being eroded by shoddy science, not shoddy studies (although there are those.. but which science does not have them??), but shoddy science, the screeching of zealotry, solution by taxation model, the wealth created by the industry (not scientists usually!) and the general fucktardness by belittling anyone who disagrees with what they believe (and indeed are proved to limited extents)to be true.. just turns people off science. Climate Change and its associated circus has done more damage to Science than almost any other modern event in regards to public perception. It is what happens when the hard left get their teeth into something and politicize a science debate.
     
    This thread has already shown us a taste of where things go if you debate even slightly against the narrative.



  • The biggest problem Nick is the hysteria created by people like Flannery, Gore et al and the astonishing CO2 pumping lifestyles these people lead. If the world is truly going to hell in a handbasket why aren't these people doing what they tell everyone else to do? If everyone consumed the way they do, the earth would have no resources left. How can you justify flying around the world on a private jet to give speeches on climate change? With all these climate junkets going on is it really necessary for all these people to be there? 99.9999% of them will have nothing to do with any agreement being reached.
    So (a) you have predictions proving to be total bullshit (see Flannery), and (b)you have people with carbon footprints the size of continents preaching to others to reduce theirs while making shitloads of cash in the process.
    The whole process has been totally corrupted and that is totally self-inflicted, not something that can be blamed on "deniers". That btw shows the depths to which this socalled debate has dropped. The use of the term denier is an obvious attempt to equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers. That again says everything about this "debate".

    you really think that's the biggest problem? To me that's a minor irritant compared to governments using the issue to convince people to willingly pay them more tax expecting no discernible outcomes. 
     
    Govt: We need to reduce carbon emissions!
    Public: That sounds pretty fair
    G: And we'll do it by taxing them!
    P: Okay, will that work?
    G: Yes, big polluters (who didn't pay a good enough lobbyist) will have to foot the bill, and they'll have to reduce them
    P: Won't they just pass on the costs?
    G: Well, yes, probably, but we'll reimburse you for it, if you're poor anyway.
    P: Okay, so how is this going to reduce emissions again?
    G: Well, um... Look! the Reef is dying, look at these photos! does that look like Finding Nemo to you? Fuck no it doesn't! Climate Change, give us money now!!
     
    And so a bunch of people just up and say "fuck this, what a have". While shreiky hippies scream about coral bleaching, and the impending apocalypse,  and nothing meaningful happens because it gets shelved under "too hard". 
     
    Actually, i take it back, that was 6 years ago. Now we have reached saturation point. Stalls are set out, and no one budges either way. And now we've got nothing. No action. No movement.



  • There is near universal agreement from suitably qualified individuals that the earth is getting warmer.
    Those same suitably qualified individuals are in consensus that anthropogenic activities are either driving or accelerating the warming effect.
    There is discussion surrounding the impact of the warming as determined by the computer modelling. Particularly given the discrepancies between measured effects and predictions. Also with the range of predictions. It is intellectually dishonest to point to a worst case scenario and state that because it's wrong, all models are wrong and hence the whole thing is a load of shit.
    There are documented issues with a number of the models, but that's the point of ongoing research to understand the interactions between all the components of our climate.
    Then we have to deal with the false equivalence of those seeking to understand the differences with being climate deniers or skeptics. They add nothing to the debate and should be ignored.
     
    Even if the earth was warming regardless of human impact, the problem is we're magnifying the change.

    and yet computer modeling cant tell me what the weather will be doing to any degree of accuracy beyond 4 days....unless I live in a desert...
     
    I'm a bit like Hooroo on this debate, I haven't invested enough time in reading (either side) to put myself in one camp or the other.



  • The whole process has been totally corrupted and that is totally self-inflicted, not something that can be blamed on "deniers".

    I wouldn't say "the whole process" or "totally". At the core of it, the science still supports the theory of humans affecting the climate. No-one has satisfactorily disproven it.
     
    At the start of it, even several noted scientists were saying "we're fucked, might as well party it out" like James Lovelock (Gaia theorist), who in 2008 said the world was fucked in 20 years, tops:
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
     
    He's since moderated his stance, and several others have as well. But they'd already put a lot of people off side, because no-one wants to think about that kind of change. 
     
    Definitely there are people who have hijacked it, to get themselves profile. That doesn't discredit the science, and certainly doesn't mean that any credibility should be given to people who dispute the science just because it suits them. Or because they've seen other studies - whose merit is highly questionable - that agree with what they say.
     
    As Mariner and Baron have said above, the governmental response have been what you'd pretty much expect: fairly lacklustre, and poorly thought out.
     
    As Mariner also says: big polluters are responsible. They've known about the issues for a very long time - to the point of having their own modelling before almost anyone else - but have done little to contribute, while making massive profits. 
     
    Baron is right about the screaming and zealotry not helping the debate. They just cloud it and instill apathy (at best) or animosity (at worst) into the people who are undecided.
     
    I'm not about to go live on a mountainside, growing my own kale, and weaving my body hair into a mattress. That just won't work for the vast majority of society, either.
     
    We're probably past the point of no change in any case, and into the mitigation cycle. That starts with better planning for energy systems and efficiency into the future, reduction in harmful practices to the point where their effects can be handled, and bringing new industries in to replace those that must, of necessity, be wound down.
     
    The financial arguments fail in light of changes that have undergone society in the past. The cycle is early adopters whose motivations aren't economic, then R&D cycles to bring it into the mainstream.
     
    I saw a quote on Twitter to the effects of: Gee if it turns out that climate change wasn't as bad as all that, we'll have cleaned up our environment and developed all these new technologies for nothing!
     
    🙂



  • and yet computer modeling cant tell me what the weather will be doing to any degree of accuracy beyond 4 days....unless I live in a desert...

    That's what you get for living in NZ 🙂 The weather in Auckland first time I was there was just mental - too close to two oceans! 😉
     
    In Hooroo's terms: horse racing form guides aren't 100% either 😉



  • and yet computer modeling cant tell me what the weather will be doing to any degree of accuracy beyond 4 days....unless I live in a desert...

    All models are wrong.  Some models are useful.

    • George Box (no, I'm not making up his name).
       
       
      I work in a field with complex models that are consistently inaccurate (no, it's not climate change).  Despite this, the models are incredibly useful to identify the likely range of behaviour when you do something to them.  However, the direction of the temperature response (upwards) is inarguable ... I'm convinced.


  • and yet computer modeling cant tell me what the weather will be doing to any degree of accuracy beyond 4 days....unless I live in a desert...
     
    I'm a bit like Hooroo on this debate, I haven't invested enough time in reading (either side) to put myself in one camp or the other.

    you don't have to read anything if you don't want to mate, you just have to understand that all the experts are in one camp and go and pitch your tent there, away from the nutters.



  • I would love to discuss it, but it is just a pointless exercise. Look at post 18 as a reason why. A discussion cannot be had on this without it turning into a shit fest if anyone posts even a view slightly against the climate change is a disaster narrative.
    Even the words used to discuss the various sides show the toxicity of the debate.. Climate Change deniers? Climate Change alarmists? If someone uses either of those terms, you know they are a zealot, not a person who believes in science.

    those claiming that climate change is not real are generally zealots and do not believe in science.
     
    i have yet to see a single valid scientific argument for it not being real, but i have seen quite a few scientifically false ones used (back-radiation, false application of the laws of thermodynamics etc). i would love to see one, as climate change not being real would be fucking awesome.



  • Counting down until Winger gets here 😉

    I missed this thread until it was referred to on a rugby post
     
    Surely by now everyone realises its all bullshit. Are people honestly this stupid. I can understand many who have their snout In the trough. but otherwise come on. Its beyond a joke now
     
    AGW is a money making religion. Its even more implausible than Jesus rose from the dead. but some still think this is factual. just like others beleive that a tiny tiny increase in CO2 will somehow magically create extra energy to warm the earth
     
    Stop believing the lying elite. Have a look at the lies they told re the recent referendum in the UK. Osborne, Cameron, Carney, Obama etc all made shit up. Climate scientists are paid good money to make shit up (some are fired if they don't fall into line). Just calling someone a climate denier tells you all you need to know. and read the climate-gate emails etc
     
    But children believe in Father Christmas until they are ready to move on



  • I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.

    The planet warmed until about 1998 and then it has been fairly level since
     
    But this is not an exact science. How do you measure accurately temperatures over 250 years. Or longer. We are talking about very very minor changes. It not like a 10-20 degree change. Only a very minor one. And its averages when during an hour it can change a lot in anyone place . And the surrounding of many measurement centers has changed (from say a field to a housing estate) and there are strange downward adjustments to old records in NZ and Aust for eg.
     
    So its best to say it seems as if it warmed until 1998. But there are rises and falls etc during this period. I tend to rely more on the satellite records now. they don't seem to be manipulated quite so much
     
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2016_v6-550x318.jpg



  • Climate scientists are paid good money to make shit up

    Damn, that reminds me:
     
    Hey TeWaio - if you're not using your Ferrari this weekend, I've got a mate in your area who wants to borrow it. And if you could leave that kilo of blow in the back, and make sure the supermodel is available to go with it, that'd be dandy.
     
    Thanks mate. I'll PM you his number.



  • "they don't seem to be manipulated much" = fits my personal view and reinforces my belief/position about climate change??



  • "they don't seem to be manipulated much" = fits my personal view and reinforces my belief/position about climate change??

    There are many way to adjust land records. this has been well documented. But the AGW the world is ending because of mankind's wickedness devotees don't want to have their beliefs challenged



  • Yet any potential evidence that is contrary to your position must be tampered with or faked? That seems to be a theme within your comments. You talk about an exact science but who is claiming that it's exact? The bulk of research (not implying quantity alone makes it compelling) is indicating we are having an impact and the impact isn't great for life on earth.
     
    Most of the talking heads scientists (Nye etc) are totally up front that if data/research is presented that refutes current thinking they'd adapt their thinking. But that data and research hasn't appeared, or if it has it hasn't stood up to broader peer review.



  • Damn, that reminds me:
    Hey TeWaio - if you're not using your Ferrari this weekend, I've got a mate in your area who wants to borrow it. And if you could leave that kilo of blow in the back, and make sure the supermodel is available to go with it, that'd be dandy.
    Thanks mate. I'll PM you his number.

    Fuck off I'm using it this weekend .



  • I'm reasonably ignorant on this matter as well.
     
    Is the scienece settled that the planet is getting warmer but not settled on how or if we can actually have a impact to reverse it?
     
    My ignorance has me believe that even if there wasn't a single person on this planet, it would still be warming at the moment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37091391
     
    This clip literally sums it up. A fucking idiot debating a scientist & telling him he (the fucking idiot) has seen the data...
     
    You will DEFINATELY find posters on here who think they are experts saying its not settled. It really just comes down to you taking their word over the word of every credible scientist & model on the planet.


Log in to reply