Trabisnikof posted:You don't get how giving ammo to the enemy can help them? 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.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:01 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 13:37 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:And you'd have to be a moron to claim that was Anthropogenic. Hmmmm, yes, yes, burning coal deposits. We don't do that as humans do we, no siree. Now you are being purposefully dense. The fact that you used BAU unironically and cited a Conservative Websites as 'proof' of the damage scientists are doing to the promoting Climate Change shoots your argument in the foot.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:02 |
Trabisnikof posted:And you'd have to be a moron to claim that was Anthropogenic. The only person putting the goalposts there is you. Also, fwiw we have a better capacity to change asteroids and volcanos than they did during the Permian extinction as well. Not sure what your point is there. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:02 |
|
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. 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. down with slavery posted:Why don't you just answer my question instead of asking dumber and dumber ones. 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.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:06 |
|
I really don't know what to say here. Trabisnikof, you do realise that Climate Change in the past has obliterated numerous civilizations?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:07 |
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. 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? Repeat after me Trabisnikof, "the reason we aren't taking action on climate change has nothing to do with the quality of science being done" "the word could does not mean will"
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:07 |
|
And that Climate Change has in the past, nearly killed off oxygen breathing life? What the hell
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:09 |
|
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. 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: quote:"prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" Guess which concept is not supported by them, no matter HOW much evidence we dig up? 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. Yes, Al Gore is a loving moron, but at least the idea behind his alarm is valid. 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. 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 CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:10 |
|
down with slavery posted:How does this prevent action? 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: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. Correct. And the fact that they can use Al Gore quotes against us, isn't helpful. We need fewer dumb quotes, not more. 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 Its valid from the perspective of comparing similar states, but the whole point of climate activism is that we can change the outcome, unlike pre-human die-offs. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:11 |
|
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. The deniers don't need more talking points, they can just declare Climate Chang a liberal conspiracy and could still be doing the same damage without the Al Gore quote. Every time Science says something they don't like, they spin it as a conspiracy. Gore or no Gore, CNS News would be singing the same song.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:13 |
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. 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.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:14 |
|
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 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.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:16 |
|
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. True, either way, we are doing a pretty good job of imitating the effects those volcanoes caused. 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. They'll spin quotes however they have to in order to appeal to their readers. Could be the most informed quote in the world, and they would spin it. Stop bringing this up.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:16 |
|
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 So there's an interesting point from that report that gets towards what I'm talking about : 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. Edit: this is even more to the point that there are key groups still open to changing their mind: quote:7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:19 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:So there's an interesting point from that report that gets towards what I'm talking about : If we are looking to politicians as 'proof' of support of climate change, we're going to have a bad time At the same if you are citing obviously biased cites as proof of the damage being done with quotes about climate change, you'll never stop finding them. quote:7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming. 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
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:21 |
Trabisnikof posted:So there's an interesting point from that report that gets towards what I'm talking about : 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. 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?
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:22 |
|
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. But the exaggerated consequences give those stupid people more ammo to fight using. That's the problem. I agree with you completely that denier discourse is vastly more of an issue, it is one outside our control. If any of us could stop Fox News from saying bullshit we would. Instead, we can only improve what we have control over. 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?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:26 |
Trabisnikof posted:But the exaggerated consequences give those stupid people more ammo to fight using. Those stupid people are not limited by ammo. They will just make poo poo up if they have to, and it will work just as well. For example, the quote you posted which clearly said "could" and yet you're here claiming it was "false". You are the problem. 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? I'm looking for "have any impact at all", maybe you can start by finding an "exaggerated claim" that's demonstrably false. Still waiting to here as to how exaggerated claims are negatively impacting our ability to take action on climate change. CNS News site not cutting it. Bravo on dodging the question again.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:28 |
|
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?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:31 |
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? Survival of the fittest, some kind of evolution mumbo jumbo. Suddenly, boom, we have anaerobic human life? I'm not sure either.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:32 |
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Survival of the fittest, some kind of evolution mumbo jumbo. Suddenly, boom, we have anaerobic human life? BAU will push human evolution
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:33 |
|
You should come up with a better catch phrase. Friendly Tumour posted:Trabisnikof I am fascinated though, what gave you the idea that unmitigated Climate Change would mean anything short of the extinction? The fact that the idea that "unmitigated Climate Change would mean the extinction of humanity" is unsupported by science? Nope! Thanks for checking! I know reading is hard for you. \/ Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:35 |
Trabisnikof posted:You should come up with a better catch phrase. Sorry did you mean to post "Sorry I was being an idiot, I'll drop my stupid point". Thanks.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:36 |
|
CommieGIR posted:BAU will push human evolution Funny thing is, almost all aerobic life and all multicellular eukaryotic carry genes associated with H2S resistance, in all likelihood as a result of anoxic events in the past
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:38 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that the idea that "unmitigated Climate Change would mean the extinction of humanity" is unsupported by science? Well I'm convinced! What in your warped view of the scientific consensus, would be the result of unmitigated Climate Change?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:40 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that the idea that "unmitigated Climate Change would mean the extinction of humanity" is unsupported by science? How is it not? Its lead to 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. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:40 |
|
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?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:44 |
|
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: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 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.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:46 |
|
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? Evidence/data. If you've got 'em, show 'em. If we're just trading opinions - my opinion is that, if you don't want to believe something is real, you won't. "Exaggerated" effects or not (note the scare quotes since there is no evidence that this has happened intentionally, either). Since we're talking about it, though - what's wrong with using climate change as a foot in the door to talk about the problems with capitalism? Does the right not use other issues as a foot in the door to talk about the problems with socialism? Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:47 |
|
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? Did I miss that section of the AR5 or something? Because it doesn't mention human extinction in the AR5 I read. 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. Once again, I never said that it was the only problem, the biggest problem, or even if we stopped exaggerating impacts, that everything would magically be better. This is just one thing slowing down action that we can actually impact ourselves, unlike Fox News, which we have no control over. Also, I don't have access to these papers at the moment, but their abstracts point towards what I'm talking about : 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.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:49 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:50 |
Trabisnikof posted:This is just one thing slowing down action [citation needed] quote:Particularly that the believe that the impacts of climate change are exaggerated has doubled from 2003-2008. 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.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:51 |
|
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. But their audience will be. As the article someone else linked earlier points out: quote:7.6. Liberal and moderate Republicans are the most likely to say they could “easily” change their mind about global warming. down with slavery posted:[citation needed] So do you see how if the media is constantly pushing that narrative maybe we shouldn't reinforce that narrative?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:51 |
Trabisnikof posted:But their audience will be. As the article someone else linked earlier points out: Ahh yes, the CNS news audience, one of the last few great barriers holding us back from climate reform. Trabisnikof posted:So do you see how maybe, if the media is constantly pushing that narrative maybe we shouldn't reinforce that narrative? I don't think we do, and I actually asked you for an "exaggerated" claim a while back and (surprise) you didn't answer. The idea the the impacts of climate change are being overstated is just a comedy. If anything, they are understated.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:52 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/030801805X42036 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? Why is exaggerating the effect worse than underplaying it, and why do you only choose one side of that coin, consistently? Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:52 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:But their audience will be. As the article someone else linked earlier points out: No, it won't. We've been seeing the effects of climate change for some time, most of their audience is perfectly happy with repeating the "It snowed this winter/Was cold outside, CLIMATE CHANGE IS FALSE!" and "Hurrican Katrina was an Act of God" talking points.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:53 |
|
down with slavery posted:Ahh yes, the CNS news audience, one of the last few great barriers holding us back from climate reform. I would say so, yes.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:53 |
|
down with slavery posted:Ahh yes, the CNS news audience, one of the last few great barriers holding us back from climate reform. 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. 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. I'm sure the media is more a big deal and I'm likewise sure that the internet's ability to help crazy people reinforce other crazy people is a big deal. Hell, I don't think exaggerating impacts is even in the top 10 reasons we're not doing anything. Its just one of the few ones that we, as believers in climate change, can control. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Feb 2, 2015 |
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:54 |
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. Lol if you think Republicans are why we aren't taking significant action on climate change. Let me guess, the minimum wage would be $15/hr if the GOP didn't exist too? Man I wish I could go back to being that naive about politics.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:55 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 13:37 |
|
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: This is the most idiotic thing: 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." B) Sept. 21, 2007 + 7 = Sept. 21, 2014. C) Who the gently caress cares about Al Gore except AGW deniers?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:55 |