Trabisnikof posted:

You don't get how giving ammo to the enemy can help them?

Trabisnikof posted:

And you'd have to be a moron to claim that was Anthropogenic.

Trabisnikof posted:

And you'd have to be a moron to claim that was Anthropogenic.

Edit: just saw your edit, the importance of the fact modern climate change is anthropogenic is because if it is anthropogenic we have a better capacity to change it, compared to asteroids/volcanoes.

CommieGIR posted:

And yet you don't seem to grasp how the Conservative movement is purely anti-Climate Change for no other reason than that they are taking their advice from Conservative Political leaders and Lobbyists, and why this should have no bearing on scientists raising very valid alarms.

down with slavery posted:

Why don't you just answer my question instead of asking dumber and dumber ones.

If you're going to say that people exaggerating the consequences of climate change are having an adverse affect on taking action I'd expect you to source it. Especially if the best you can do is some conservative news blog that doesn't know what the definition of "could" is.

Trabisnikof posted:

I used as an example, someone taking exaggerated impacts from a non-scientist and using it to "disprove" the science. That's the exact thing I'm talking about happening.

Trabisnikof posted:

My point isn't about the scientist raising valid alarms, it is about non-scientists exaggerating those alarms to beyond validity. Certainty is an important part of validity.

quote:

"prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values"

Trabisnikof posted:

I used as an example, someone taking exaggerated impacts from a non-scientist and using it to "disprove" the science. That's the exact thing I'm talking about happening.

Trabisnikof posted:

Edit: just saw your edit, the importance of the fact modern climate change is anthropogenic is because if it is anthropogenic we have a better capacity to change it, compared to asteroids/volcanoes.

down with slavery posted:

How does this prevent action?

How hard is it to like read a post and actually respond to what I'm saying instead of trying to dodge the question over and over again?

CommieGIR posted:

Its loving CNS News. They exaggerate and ridicule any viewpoint that is not lockstep in like with the GOP/Conservative movement. You might as well asked Inhofe for his view on Climate Change.
Check out their mission statement:

They received direct funding from Exxon Mobil

Guess which concept is not supported by them, no matter HOW much evidence we dig up?

quote:

We have no reason whatsoever to doubt it being anthorpogenic, and despite the fact that the cited event was caused by volcanoes, it released similar compounds to what is currently being cited by scientists as being tied to Climate Change today, it is a valid and comparable event

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm not trying to dodge the question, I just was assuming the internal link was more obvious. When people like Al Gore say things that aren't supported by the science, those statements are later used as examples of the conspiracy or incompetence of climate change and are used in arguments to both sway public opinion and policy makers against action. This isn't the only obstacle facing action (nor even the biggest), but it isn't helpful to give more talking points to the deniers.

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm not trying to dodge the question, I just was assuming the internal link was more obvious. When people like Al Gore say things that aren't supported by the science, those statements are later used as examples of the conspiracy or incompetence of climate change and are used in arguments to both sway public opinion and policy makers against action. This isn't the only obstacle facing action (nor even the biggest), but it isn't helpful to give more talking points to the deniers.

CommieGIR posted:

We have no reason whatsoever to doubt it being anthorpogenic, and despite the fact that the cited event was caused by volcanoes, it released similar compounds to what is currently being cited by scientists as being tied to Climate Change today, it is a valid and comparable event

Friendly Tumour posted:

Initiated by volcanic activity, but the real cause was ultimately the release of vast methane reserves from the ocean and the associated anoxic event. Which is exactly what scares the poo poo out of me, since we have no idea when that clathrate bomb might go off.

Trabisnikof posted:

Correct. And the fact that they can use Al Gore quotes against us, isn't helpful. We need fewer dumb quotes, not more.

down with slavery posted:

Here's the thing, the public opinion on climate change is pretty solid: http://climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Politics_and_Global_Warming.pdf

Put simply, Al Gore saying that the Arctic could see an ice-less summer by 2013 wasn't incorrect and as I've said previously, the "exaggeration" of claims w/r/t Global Warming has literally 0 to do with why we aren't taking meaningful action. If you have something other than a hunch that tells otherwise, please share.

And if you half answer my one line question then yeah, you are kind of dodging it, or at least incapable of reading.

quote:

Though recent studies have shown that virtually all climate scientists (97%) have concluded human-caused climate change is happening, Americans, on average, estimate that only half of climate scientists think it is happening. On average, liberal Democrats are the only group who believe that a majority (76%) of climate scientists agree, although this is still well below the actual degree of scientific consensus.

quote:

7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming.
Relatively few Americans of any political party say they could easily change their mind about global warming (31%). One exception: 51% of liberal and moderate Republicans say they could.

Trabisnikof posted:

So there's an interesting point from that report that gets towards what I'm talking about :

quote:

7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming.
Relatively few Americans of any political party say they could easily change their mind about global warming (31%). One exception: 51% of liberal and moderate Republicans say they could.

Trabisnikof posted:

So there's an interesting point from that report that gets towards what I'm talking about :


Edit: this is even more to the point that there are key groups still open to changing their mind:

down with slavery posted:

Again, just because people are stupid doesn't mean that falsely exaggerated consequences of climate change are to blame. You're really bad at this whole "critical thinking" stuff, aren't ya.

I'd be way more willing to blame the simply false claims being made on major tv networks day in and day out by denialists or people like you who are "just making a point" that doesn't even exist in reality.

down with slavery posted:

Let's try again mr "I'm not dodging your question". How are falsely exaggerated consequences of climate change to blame for us not having taking major action so far?

Trabisnikof posted:

But the exaggerated consequences give those stupid people more ammo to fight using.

Trabisnikof posted:

Just got your edit. If you were reading my posts, you'd know that I have already said that exaggerated claims were neither solely to blame nor even the largest cause. Just one of the few ones under our control. You're really bad at this "reading stuff" thing, aren't you?

Friendly Tumour posted:

Trabisnikof I am fascinated though, what gave you the idea that unmitigated Climate Change would mean anything short of the extinction of the human species?

GreyPowerVan posted:

Survival of the fittest, some kind of evolution mumbo jumbo. Suddenly, boom, we have anaerobic human life?

I'm not sure either.

down with slavery posted:

Friendly Tumour posted:

Trabisnikof I am fascinated though, what gave you the idea that unmitigated Climate Change would mean anything short of the extinction?

Trabisnikof posted:

You should come up with a better catch phrase.

CommieGIR posted:

BAU will push human evolution

Trabisnikof posted:

The fact that the idea that "unmitigated Climate Change would mean the extinction of humanity" is unsupported by science?

Trabisnikof posted:

The fact that the idea that "unmitigated Climate Change would mean the extinction of humanity" is unsupported by science?

CommieGIR posted:

It. Doesn't. Matter. We could be sinking into the ocean right now, and half these idiots would still never be convinced otherwise, especially with the overwhelming majority of the GOP thinking we're in the 'Last Days' before the Second Coming, they would just treat climate change as proof that God is preparing us for Jesus

crazypenguin posted:

This discussion has gotten stupid the last page or so. Are you people seriously arguing that lying and exaggerating the consequences of climate change is totally an okay thing and definitely not bad in any way?

CommieGIR posted:

How is it not? Its lead the the extinction of life on Earth before, why are we special? Despite our advances, we are still heavily dependent upon plants and animals that could very well be wiped out via such changes.

Friendly Tumour posted:

Well I'm convinced! What in your warped view of the scientific consensus, would be the result of unmitigated Climate Change?

Radbot posted:

I like how Trabinisnikof keeps spouting bullshit about how "exaggerating" (in his eyes) the effect of climate change will negatively impact changes necessary to slow its advance. It's the same kind of naive, evidence-free thinking that believes the GOP would be less intransigent if only Democrats would work with the other side.

Do you have any, literally any data at all, to support this idea? If not, why should anyone listen to you?

crazypenguin posted:

Actually talking to deniers can be very instructive. There are a huge number of conservatives who are under the impression that climate change is a made up pile of crap by people with an ideological interest in destroying capitalism. Yes, they are hard to get through to, but one tactic that will do no loving good whatsoever is to make up or exaggerate the consequences (see above: oh yeah, an anoxic event, that's totally something scientists think will happen) and then loving publicly state that you want to exploit the threat of climate change to end capitalism.

It's hard enough to convince people of the truth when it's actually false. But when their idiotic conspiracy theory is actually substantially true of some loving people (you know, excepting the fact that climate change is real and will be bad and we need to do something), it's an impossible mess.

Trabisnikof posted:

This is just one thing slowing down action

quote:

Particularly that the believe that the impacts of climate change are exaggerated has doubled from 2003-2008.

CommieGIR posted:

CNS News, funded by Exxon Mobil and founded to 'fight liberal bias in the media' is not going to be swayed by evidence based arguments.

quote:

7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming.
Relatively few Americans of any political party say they could easily change their mind about global warming (31%). One exception: 51% of liberal and moderate Republicans say they could.

down with slavery posted:

[citation needed]


Maybe because the media is literally constantly pushing that narrative now that the GOP can't outright deny Climate Change except to the dumbest of their supporters.

Trabisnikof posted:

But their audience will be. As the article someone else linked earlier points out:

Trabisnikof posted:

So do you see how maybe, if the media is constantly pushing that narrative maybe we shouldn't reinforce that narrative?

Trabisnikof posted:

http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/030801805X42036

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378011000173

Particularly that the believe that the impacts of climate change are exaggerated has doubled from 2003-2008.

Trabisnikof posted:

But their audience will be. As the article someone else linked earlier points out:

down with slavery posted:

Ahh yes, the CNS news audience, one of the last few great barriers holding us back from climate reform.

down with slavery posted:

Ahh yes, the CNS news audience, one of the last few great barriers holding us back from climate reform.

Radbot posted:

Yes, I agree with the abstract from paper one - the media certainly misrepresents things, yes. I think that's a a wider issue, though. It also appears that the internet sources they found were overly critical of CC research, so not sure how that supports your side of this issue.

And for paper two - what role do you think the media plays in this? How would you compare Al Gore's "ice free in 2013" prediction to FNC's placing of "An Inconvenient Truth" in a snow bank and filming it, every year, as proof that CC isn't real?

SedanChair posted:

I would say so, yes.

Trabisnikof posted:

Yes, actually it is conservatives that could believe in climate change, but don't that are keeping us from climate reform. I know you're being sarcastic but its true.

Trabisnikof posted:

I mean, its not hard to find an example of the deniers using a public claim by a non-scientist to "disprove" the science:


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013

quote:

Gore said that on Sept. 21, 2007, "scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar icecap is, in their words, 'falling off a cliff.' One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."