Global Warming

[RichardMNixon]

A roommate of mine is a pretty smart guy but also staunchly insists that global warming isn't real. It's doubly depressing since he has a scientific education and yet he seems to swallow republican politician crap instead of listening to any scientists; he basically hasn't heard any of the science, just decided he didn't want to believe in it. We've discussed it briefly before but I haven't studied it extensively myself so the only argument I could really make was that I trust a global scientific consensus a good bit more than I trust Sarah Palin. If anyone could recommend some good sources for learning more about the science I'd appreciate it. Any good, recent books or non-specialist journals?

 

[Pulsar]

On youtube, you should watch the climate videos of greenman3610 and potholer54. On the web, excellent sites are http://www.skepticalscience.com/, http://www.realclimate.org/, The 26 Most Common Climate Myths & Misconceptions, and of course http://www.ipcc.ch/. You can also find tonnes of useful links at http://www.nhne.org/tabid/490/Default.aspx. Hope this helps.

 

[Niocan]

Wow, the conditioning just shines through here doesn't it..
He's smart, but because he disagrees with one mainstream hypothesis, he's entirely wrong and downgraded in your eyes. You're not very nice, and instead of shoving his face full of more bullshit (see above comment in its entirety) perhaps you should trust your fellow human and ask constructive questions instead of squaring off in mental battle like a religious zealot.

Yes there's a warming trend recently; That's what happens after a little ice age, and humans impact aside from killing the planet with toxins (not one of which is CO2 or methane) is *nothing* in comparison to *natural cycles*.

 

[Aught3]

Speaking of conspiracy theories has anyone seen Howtheworldworks' videos replying to Greenman? They're not very accurate but quite well made. Anyway one of the graphs he shows a pink fuzz which he calls uncertainty and then claims that the overlap means that there is no statistical significance. Since he doesn't say how the uncertainty is calculated I'm happy to dismiss him as statistically illiterate but he does claim that in an hour long video there is justification for his claim. Since I'm on quite limited internet I don't like hour long videos, especially if I only want to know one thing out of them. So, has anyone watched it, and did the guy mention how the uncertainty was calculated?

HTWW video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs6ofn46xUY
Lindzen lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

 

[ImprobableJoe]

A roommate of mine is a pretty smart guy but also staunchly insists that global warming isn't real. It's doubly depressing since he has a scientific education and yet he seems to swallow republican politician crap instead of listening to any scientists; he basically hasn't heard any of the science, just decided he didn't want to believe in it. We've discussed it briefly before but I haven't studied it extensively myself so the only argument I could really make was that I trust a global scientific consensus a good bit more than I trust Sarah Palin. If anyone could recommend some good sources for learning more about the science I'd appreciate it. Any good, recent books or non-specialist journals?

I don't know why you should leave the "I trust a global scientific consensus a good bit more than I trust Sarah Palin" line of reasoning, since neither you nor your friend nor Sarah Palin (nor I...) are qualified to evaluate the scientific data. Instead, you should focus on the fact that anti-GW propaganda comes from three places: political organizations, businesses that profit from fossil fuels, crackpot anti-science morons on the Internet, and nowhere else.

If he's a Republican, a Bush supporter, and a science-y guy, you can probably work up a convincing comparison between the morons and liars who reject climate change, and the morons and liars who promote 9/11 conspiracy stupidity.

 

[Jorick]

Wow, the conditioning just shines through here doesn't it..
He's smart, but because he disagrees with one mainstream hypothesis, he's entirely wrong and downgraded in your eyes. You're not very nice, and instead of shoving his face full of more bullshit (see above comment in its entirety) perhaps you should trust your fellow human and ask constructive questions instead of squaring off in mental battle like a religious zealot.

Wow, the stupidity just shines through here doesn't it..

You seem to have totally misread the opening post. Nowhere did he say that his roommate is "entirely wrong and downgraded," just that he's wrong in one area. And how the hell is buying into blatant propaganda a way of asking "constructive questions"? If anything, it's failing to ask basic questions such as "what is their evidence?" and "why are they against environmental protection?"

Urgh, now I see why people call you a conspiracy nutter...

 

[Niocan]

Wow, the stupidity just shines through here doesn't it..

You seem to have totally misread the opening post. Nowhere did he say that his roommate is "entirely wrong and downgraded," just that he's wrong in one area. And how the hell is buying into blatant propaganda a way of asking "constructive questions"? If anything, it's failing to ask basic questions such as "what is their evidence?" and "why are they against environmental protection?"

Urgh, now I see why people call you a conspiracy nutter...

I didn't misread at all, you just took the words I choose to use and played on their baggage and extreme meaning to suit your own argument; Setting me up as a strawman to fail. Brilliant, for a fool.

Pro-cycles (Which I'll be using instead of anti AGW) isn't the side that needs to prove anything, so asking them for evidence only implies your misunderstanding of the situation. Adding the appeal to safety is the cherry on top of a bullshit cake. Any other questions?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Wow, the conditioning just shines through here doesn't it..
He's smart, but because he disagrees with one mainstream hypothesis, he's entirely wrong and downgraded in your eyes. You're not very nice, and instead of shoving his face full of more bullshit (see above comment in its entirety) perhaps you should trust your fellow human and ask constructive questions instead of squaring off in mental battle like a religious zealot.

Yes there's a warming trend recently; That's what happens after a little ice age, and humans impact aside from killing the planet with toxins (not one of which is CO2 or methane) is *nothing* in comparison to *natural cycles*.

We've had a lot of rational thought out discussions on abortion, gay marriage (which I think I changed his mind on), the economy, the war etc. Those subjective issues can be solved with thought experiments and philosophy. This one is a little more objective and needs data.

He has also explicitly told me that is not familiar with the data and basically just assumed global warming wasn't real. Hence, I again need the data. Chill the fuck out.

To everyone else, thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into some of those links after my finals.

 

[Niocan]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

I'd link it as an image, but it's wider then 800 pixels.. If you asked for raw data here it is

 

[Aught3]

Nice mp3 on global warming: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2006/09/orr_20060903.mp3

 

[obsidianavenger]

A roommate of mine is a pretty smart guy but also staunchly insists that global warming isn't real. It's doubly depressing since he has a scientific education and yet he seems to swallow republican politician crap instead of listening to any scientists; he basically hasn't heard any of the science, just decided he didn't want to believe in it. We've discussed it briefly before but I haven't studied it extensively myself so the only argument I could really make was that I trust a global scientific consensus a good bit more than I trust Sarah Palin. If anyone could recommend some good sources for learning more about the science I'd appreciate it. Any good, recent books or non-specialist journals?

I don't know why you should leave the "I trust a global scientific consensus a good bit more than I trust Sarah Palin" line of reasoning, since neither you nor your friend nor Sarah Palin (nor I...) are qualified to evaluate the scientific data. Instead, you should focus on the fact that anti-GW propaganda comes from three places: political organizations, businesses that profit from fossil fuels, crackpot anti-science morons on the Internet, and nowhere else.

If he's a Republican, a Bush supporter, and a science-y guy, you can probably work up a convincing comparison between the morons and liars who reject climate change, and the morons and liars who promote 9/11 conspiracy stupidity.

yar, can the appeal to authority and institute the ad hominem in its place. good plan

 

[scalyblue]

It's not argumentum ad verecundiam to cite an expert in his own field. There is a scientific consensus on AGW, peer reviewed and supported by data from several fields. If you have a legitimate dispute to AGW, publish your own paper to a peer reviewed journal, earn your nobel prize, and until you do, kindly shut the fuck up

It is argumentum ad hominem to consider that the arguments of the republicans, morons, and liars are poor because they come from republicans, morons, and liars. It is not argumentum ad hominem to consider that the arguments are poor because they are poor.

 

[obsidianavenger]

It's not argumentum ad verecundiam to cite an expert in his own field. There is a scientific consensus on AGW, peer reviewed and supported by data from several fields. If you have a legitimate dispute to AGW, publish your own paper to a peer reviewed journal, earn your nobel prize, and until you do, kindly shut the fuck up

It is argumentum ad hominem to consider that the arguments of the republicans, morons, and liars are poor because they come from republicans, morons, and liars. It is not argumentum ad hominem to consider that the arguments are poor because they are poor.

fair enough on the first count, though it sounded snappier that way. i am personally weary of claims to scientific consensus as some kind of meterstick but realize that in this case the authority appealed to isn't illegitimate or unwarranted.

however if you meant to imply their arguments are poor because they are poor you should not have said " you should focus on the fact that anti-GW propaganda comes from three places: political organizations, businesses that profit from fossil fuels, crackpot anti-science morons on the Internet, and nowhere else"

let me translate: "only idiots disagree with the idea so it must be right"

its a subtle attack on the person you are trying to convince at the least.... implying that by disagreeing they are idiots.

 

[scalyblue]

fair enough on the first count, though it sounded snappier that way. i am personally weary of claims to scientific consensus as some kind of meterstick but realize that in this case the authority appealed to isn't illegitimate or unwarranted.

however if you meant to imply their arguments are poor because they are poor you should not have said " you should focus on the fact that anti-GW propaganda comes from three places: political organizations, businesses that profit from fossil fuels, crackpot anti-science morons on the Internet, and nowhere else"

let me translate: "only idiots disagree with the idea so it must be right"

its a subtle attack on the person you are trying to convince at the least.... implying that by disagreeing they are idiots.

I'm not the author of the comments you were originally retorting.

Anti AGW propaganda comes from multiple sources, and most of those sources are people unwilling or unable to understand the science behind the consensus. That includes your politicians and your internet crackpots. If there were really fatal flaws in AGW, papers would have been published to point them out, peer reviewed, and not refuted. The scientists who submitted those papers would be acclaimed after the peer review process, possibly famous.

You have to remember that to refute AGW, there needs to be furnished a completely feasible explanation as to all of the observations that lead to the conclusion of AGW, and why those observations don't lead to AGW.

Then again, some detractors would say that the scientists are doing it for the money...because there's so much money in science...I mean, look at them, they wear shirts so expensive that they need special..protection...for their pockets..

 

[obsidianavenger]

fair enough on the first count, though it sounded snappier that way. i am personally weary of claims to scientific consensus as some kind of meterstick but realize that in this case the authority appealed to isn't illegitimate or unwarranted.

however if you meant to imply their arguments are poor because they are poor you should not have said " you should focus on the fact that anti-GW propaganda comes from three places: political organizations, businesses that profit from fossil fuels, crackpot anti-science morons on the Internet, and nowhere else"

let me translate: "only idiots disagree with the idea so it must be right"

its a subtle attack on the person you are trying to convince at the least.... implying that by disagreeing they are idiots.

I'm not the author of the comments you were originally retorting.

Anti GW propaganda comes from multiple sources, and most of those sources are people unwilling or unable to understand the science behind the consensus. That includes your politicians and your internet crackpots. If there were really fatal flaws in AGW, papers would have been published to point them out, peer reviewed, and not refuted. The scientists who submitted those papers would be acclaimed after the peer review process, possibly famous.

You have to remember that to refute AGW, there needs to be furnished a completely feasible explanation as to all of the observations that lead to the conclusion of AGW, and why those observations don't lead to AGW.

Then again, some detractors would say that the scientists are doing it for the money...because there's so much money in science...I mean, look at them, they wear shirts so expensive that they need special..protection...for their pockets..

oops. lol sorry for not paying better attention.

just to clarify i don't deny AWG, i was just bothered by that "argument"

 

[ImprobableJoe]

yar, can the appeal to authority and institute the ad hominem in its place. good plan

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

oops. lol sorry for not paying better attention.

just to clarify i don't deny AWG, i was just bothered by that "argument"

I think the problem is that you misunderstood the argument I was making. I was NOT making a scientific argument about global warming. As I stated in my first post, none of us here is probably qualified to make that argument, unless we're a climate scientist. If I were making a scientific argument for global warming, you would be correct that citing the fact that critics are non-scientists with a political axe to grind, conspiracy nutters on the Internet, and scientists hired by polluting companies, would all be irrelevant to the scientific argument.

The problem with presenting a scientific argument in this situation is that global warming deniers believe that science itself is tainted, so showing more scientific evidence is simply met with the claim that it is just more tainted evidence. The real questions we need to answer is "Who can you trust? Why should you trust them?" Because our argument has to be about why we should be confident that the scientists have a better idea of the science than laypersons(politicians and conspiracy theorists) and why the fringe deniers in the scientific community have gotten no traction, part of that discussion necessarily goes to the character of the players on both sides. We're talking about honesty and motives for lying and telling the truth, and about safeguards against fraud that exist in the scientific community that don't exist among political ideologues and business interests.

Since my argument is about all of those things, why is it inappropriate to bring up the facts about the people involved in the denial movement?

 

[RichardMNixon]

oops. lol sorry for not paying better attention.

just to clarify i don't deny AWG, i was just bothered by that "argument"

The problem with presenting a scientific argument in this situation is that global warming deniers believe that science itself is tainted, so showing more scientific evidence is simply met with the claim that it is just more tainted evidence. The real questions we need to answer is "Who can you trust? Why should you trust them?" Because our argument has to be about why we should be confident that the scientists have a better idea of the science than laypersons(politicians and conspiracy theorists)

It's so sad that that kind of anti-science sentiment exists in America, and yeah, I don't think it's possible to change their minds. We're both Ph.D. students though, so I'm hoping he'll be a little more receptive to science than your average Ken Ham. The extreme irony of course being that his research is on hydrogen storage and probably funded by bailout money to save the planet.

 

[scalyblue]

Tell him that storing hydrogen is simple, just put it in big cigar shaped balloons with powdered thermite paint.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It's so sad that that kind of anti-science sentiment exists in America, and yeah, I don't think it's possible to change their minds. We're both Ph.D. students though, so I'm hoping he'll be a little more receptive to science than your average Ken Ham. The extreme irony of course being that his research is on hydrogen storage and probably funded by bailout money to save the planet.

This is probably where "our side" fails the most in dealing with the liars, frauds, and nuts. We assume that making the scientific argument is good enough, and the way to answer false claims is to present the truth and let it do the work for us. That's just not enough, because we're getting our asses handed to us by emotional arguments that aren't fact-based and are often immune to fact-based refutation.