Hard News: The Language of Climate
266 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
I should have emphasized:
1. If so, do you believe that the climate is currently changing in a way that is out of the ordinary for the planet?I'm not asking about whether the climate itself is ordinary, but whether the rate at which is changing is. If C is the average climate, I'm asking about C'(t) (if you remember any calculus). The steepness of the gradient of the change. Or anything else about the way in which it is changing, that might seem out of the ordinary. For instance, you might expect some quite rapid rises during a period of extreme sunspot activity, but since we're not in such a period....etc.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
That might not be precise enough.
There you go, a very simple question and Mr Green refuses to answer it.
I have no time for deniers. None at all. I'll be back when he's away.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
You couldn’t know because you weren’t involved, but I did answer it ; and encountered the uncertainty that Ben has since emphasized.
So I deleted my whole answer (a couple of minutes after I had posted it) , and suggested that clarification was needed. Ben obviously agreed.
Perfect George. Just jump to conclusions and immediately publish a falsehood i.e
“Mr Green refuses to answer it.”I wonder what would have been lost if you had simply said nothing and waited for the clarification.
Classical! :-)
-
Moz, in reply to
But as someone pointed out back then , my suggestions were unacceptable to most because they came from the wrong side of the fence.
But not to everyone. I've worked with The Maruia Society, I've worked with sincere Catholics (I'm a vegetarian and oppose pedophilia), I can work with most people. To a fairly large degree I'll work with anyone who's trying to make things better, even if some of what they do makes things dramatically worse. I look for a net gain, especially when the losses are things that don't affect the gains I care about (yes, even if you drive to the anti-AGW rally). Realistically, the gulf between me and Catholics is larger than most gaps, but that doesn't stop me spending occasional weekends picking plastic waste out of the local river with a bunch of them.
So I'm on the side of listening to people and finding common ground, rather than coming up with ever-more-precise ways to divide people.
It's worth noting that there are way too many people on the net who are just here for the debate. You've previously linked to some from the denier side, but there are examples here of people from the alarmist side doing the same thing.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
So I deleted my whole answer (a couple of minutes after I had posted it) , and suggested that clarification was needed. Ben obviously agreed.
You were lucky I saw it, because just saying “not precise enough” wouldn’t have enabled my post*. The point you made about the historical range enabled me to clarify the question.
Can you answer it now? If you can’t, then can you clarify why you can’t, so the question can be reframed? I know it might seem like I’m trying to pigeonhole you, and that would be because I am. But it’s equal opportunity pigeonholing – everyone’s going to end up somewhere. I can understand why George thought you refused to answer it. You can disabuse him right now. Or I’ll be starting to agree with him.
I’m not even attempting to fight the points here – I’m stepping back one and asking for people to declare what their position is.
*ETA: Also, as a point of netiquette, it also made my post contextless, which was annoying for me. When you take something away on this site, the norm is to put <redacted for x reason>. Use the preview button, if you just want to proof read things - if you post, then people can only presume you want to make the point.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
I see so much common ground when it comes to the actual actions that produce the net gains.
But like you say, some people will never see it that way. It is only mildly frustrating to see too little being done because some are perceived to lack the idealogical purity , and it has never stopped me from getting on with it.Does anyone condone pedophilia?
I attended a Catholic boys boarding school in the 60s. I think I might be close to being over it (the whole experience , that is. I was lucky) ; some still are not. -
Farmer Green, in reply to
It's so funny , because I saw that my original answer was likely to provoke an outburst.
George won't be back while I'm here.I don't believe that the climate is currently changing in a way that is out of the ordinary for the planet? But I can't know that.
But I also believe that there is not enough good evidence to say conclusively that it is or it isn't. Primarily , I think that the period during which we have extremely accurate observation is too short to draw a conclusion either way.
I'm aware that this answer will probably derail the conversation right there. , if it hasn't already been derailed. But as moz accurately observes , some people live for that sort of thing. -
But I also believe that there is not enough good evidence to say conclusively that it is or it isn’t.
So if I asked you to put a probability on a yes answer to question 1, you'd say 50:50, 50%, 0.5?
That doesn't make you a level 1 denier. Perhaps a level 1 skeptic, if we want a label for it. It's almost the same as not having an opinion on question 1.
I’m aware that this answer will probably derail the conversation right there.
Not really, it puts you in a box. People might not want to discuss that particular question. I certainly don't, it's been done to death. People aren't going to stop debating on your account, they just won't debate with you, on this question. There's an awful lot more to this chain of questions, and some people might be interested in questions further down purely hypothetically, others might have solid beliefs about them. As I see it, the answer that you have given pretty much is saying that you aren't much interested in the subsequent questions.
Which is a statement about you, not the debate. I'd expect it to just go around you now, unless you take an interest in the other questions. If you do, remember that they are conditional. By engaging those questions, you have already accepted the premise (the "if" part). You can do that in good faith. Or not. Your choice.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
As I see it, the answer that you have given pretty much is saying that you aren’t much interested in the subsequent questions.
I haven't seen them yet. It's something earlier in the thread right?
So , in giving an honest answer to your question , I wasn't aware that would lead to your assumption.
Sorry I had to duck away there. I had to load up with silage and feed the cows.
I'll take a look at the questions during my next break. -
And meanwhile, Keith Ng has just done the thing I asked about in my post.
People should read it.
-
Sacha, in reply to
+1.
amazing, Keith
-
Sacha, in reply to
a graph showing the relative sizes of the two groups
I suggested using a section of a sports stadium crowd photo to show relevant numbers for the bowel screening programme pilot. Real people, just lots.
-
Taking pleasure in causing people to leave a previously productive discussion is pretty disgusting behaviour and not something I am happy to see here. Sigh.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Taking pleasure in causing people to leave a previously productive discussion is pretty disgusting behaviour and not something I am happy to see here. Sigh.
+1
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And meanwhile, Keith Ng has just done the thing I asked about in my post.
People should read it.
From past precedent, it's taken something cataclysmically tragic to blow apart organised denial. It sadly took the outbreak of the Black Death to bring an end to European feudalism and its associated superstitions, and bring on the Renaissance. The imperialism of the Great Powers and their ultra-nationalism was only ended by two World Wars.
Hurricane Katrina and the Great Recession, while major events, are less a cataclysm and more the proverbial frogs in a boiling pot. Here's hoping it won't take a proper cataclysm to do something this time round. We just hope Max Rockatansky won't be saying "I told you so".
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Bart's scientifical optimism notwithstanding, I suspect you might be right.
Their leaders talked...and talked.....and talked.....
-
Well there’s your answer Russell. Bart has spoken. FG caused GD to leave and took pleasure in doing so. . It’ s horseshit for mine, but that will be the full extent of the Grand Inquisitor’s engagement.
The fact that GD went off half-cocked and prematurely is irrelevant; pre-judgement was , and continues to be the order of the day.
What I see is that GD was determined to undermine what Ben was doing; the theatricality was definitely amusing , especially in view of the poor timing. [Wait for the cue George , wait for the cue :-) ]
And the effect on Ben was obvious to see.With the best will in the world , Ben could not have kept that conversation going on this blog.
I’m not so sure that language was the problem. Sacha has it right I think.
Anyway, your call Russell. Leave it there?
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
GD was just playing his part in the pantomime Bart. I didn't write the script.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Anyway, your call Russell. Leave it there?
I would prefer it if you left the conversation. You're just baiting people and making the discussion about yourself. Again.
-
Will do. Good luck.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Will do. Good luck.
Thanks for your understanding.
-
Hebe, in reply to
I would prefer it if you left the conversation. You're just baiting people and making the discussion about yourself. Again.
Thank God for that. I might join in now. I have now interest in head games: PAS being mind-fuck-free is what makes it wonderful.
-
It was entirely my fault. I apologise to all concerned.
-
as above, so below
stepping back apace
for a little perspective
go to Spaceweather.com now...Oh and by the way now's the time to spy on the neighbours!
- In only 5 days, Mars will make its closest approach to Earth since 2012. Australian astrophotograher Anthony Wesley couldn't wait. Using a 16 inch telescope, he took this picture last night:
His high-resolution image shows the rapidly evaporating north polar cap (summer began there in February), orographic clouds over the Elysium volcanoes near the Martian equator, and an even brighter blue cloud over the Hellas impact basin in the southern hemisphere. Hellas is the lowest point on Mars, and some of the haze evident there could be icy fog.anything can happen...
everything already is..
energetic beings unite. -
I hope that wasn't viewed as me throwing toys from the cot.
I've come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing to be gained from debating a climate change contrarian/denier. If the evidence of 9135 of 9136 publishing scientists will not convince them, nothing will. The reasons for contrarianism/denial are many, but they all originate from the fact that climate change demands we change. This illustrates the point with humour: https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/446105317332381697/photo/1
I visit this site most days:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
The numbers give a concrete reality to climate change, showing where we are in reducing our emissions and turning the corner. We've passed 400ppm again for the second time in human history (the first was last year), and show every sign of increasing in speed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.