• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Climate Change(d)?

I agree that climate changes are happening now and are obvious in some places in the world {snip} without needing to hear from the scientists.
Oh really? Such as?

My Indian family has definitely seen a change in the monsoon cycles since they were young and the climate was more stable.

Flooding events in Central Europe are another.

Coral reef bleaching. Changes in fishing due to migration patterns changing in sea life

But since these are mostly anecdotal I can point you to some Scientific results in another area:

Antarctic ice loss. See, for example,

Greene et al. Nature volume 609, pages 948–953 (2022)


Since you claim to be familiar with the literature can you point to any results that support your position?

To be fair, I do think phrases like “boiling ocean” don’t help because actual boiling (T=100C) is not the kind of climate effect we are currently concerned with.

Gotta scare the masses to comply with the authoritarian agenda.

Again, your issue is with the politicians and/or activists/communicators, not the actual science.

Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
 
Last edited:
Again, your issue is with the politicians and/or activists/communicators, not the actual science.
The politics is inextricable from “the science”.
In general I'd say no shit Sherlock. Tell us something we do not know.

Climate change policy affects economics, and it is more correct to say economics and politics meaning big bigness and government are inextricably linked. Science is what makes the modern economy go.

It is more correct to say the climate denial propaganda is inextricably linked to the special interests of industrial polluters. Trump garnered support in his first campaign by saying he would find new ways to use and increase demand for coal. He told declining coal communities he would bring back coal jobs.

China eventually joined the rest of the world acknowledging climate change and pollution. It is going full speed to alternative energy as much as possible. It 's economy has a dependence on coal and resists reducing fossil fuels to the degree others are working towards..
 
Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
I am sure I have criticized a few on this very thread.
This thread is not a science journal. You said you were familiar with the literature, so please point to a journal published result you disagree with or one that supports your position.

Simply saying “sure Jan” or “rapture-like cult” is not a valid scientific critique.
 
I recently linked to a science article that discussed the evidence that the Arctic is currently the most impacted area by climate change. Twiz chose to make a remark about a photo of a polar bear, despite the fact that the bear was on very thin ice, just like his rebuke of climate change. Did he even read the article or did the polar bear say it all? :thinking: I think that trying to convince Twiz that climate change is a result of human activity is like trying to convince a Trump supporter that Trump is a mentally ill, corrupt person with obvious symptoms of dementia and psychopathy. He certainly seems to have a lot in common with a Trump supporter. Did anyone notice that Trump kept mixing up Pelosi with Haley at his recent rally? Yeah. No symptoms of cognitive decline there, not at all. :noid:
 
Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
I am sure I have criticized a few on this very thread.
This thread is not a science journal. You said you were familiar with the literature, so please point to a journal published result you disagree with or one that supports your position.
I have said already, I have criticized “the science” posted in this very thread.
 
Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
I am sure I have criticized a few on this very thread.
This thread is not a science journal. You said you were familiar with the literature, so please point to a journal published result you disagree with or one that supports your position.
I have said already, I have criticized “the science” posted in this very thread.
That is so cute how you put “science” in scare quotes. Maybe you could point to those critiques, and tell us what informs them or makes them credible, since you obviously know nothing at all about science.
 
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE
It’s about those horrible people.
 
Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
I am sure I have criticized a few on this very thread.
This thread is not a science journal. You said you were familiar with the literature, so please point to a journal published result you disagree with or one that supports your position.
I have said already, I have criticized “the science” posted in this very thread.
Noted. Thanks.
 
Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
I am sure I have criticized a few on this very thread.
This thread is not a science journal. You said you were familiar with the literature, so please point to a journal published result you disagree with or one that supports your position.
I have said already, I have criticized “the science” posted in this very thread.
Noted. Thanks.
You’re weclome. ;)
 
Can you point to a single science result that you take issue with? Point to an article and I’ll take a look at it.
I am sure I have criticized a few on this very thread.
This thread is not a science journal. You said you were familiar with the literature, so please point to a journal published result you disagree with or one that supports your position.
I have said already, I have criticized “the science” posted in this very thread.
Criticize and critical review have different contagions.

Trump criticizes almost always using bogus claims.

Critical review means pointing out specific flaws in facts and logic.

Posting random links is not refutation. It is grasping at straws.

Mockng that which you do not understand is not criticism, it is childish.
 
Again, your issue is with the politicians and/or activists/communicators, not the actual science.
The politics is inextricable from “the science”.
No. The science is clear. The right wing sounds like the tobacco executives pretending nicotine isn't addictive.
That’s correct. It’s the application of science that is subject to politics. Understanding the science has nothing to do with it; understanding science is not only unnecessary, it’s often counterproductive to certain political factions.
 
https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/151/4/98/113706/From-Anti-Government-to-Anti-Science-Why

It appears as if conservatives don't have much trust in science and there are reasons for that, including why they deny climate change.

These findings do not support the conclusion of a crisis of public trust in science. However, available data do support the conclusion of a crisis of conservative trust in science. Reaction to scientific findings is highly polarized, with Republican voters and self-identified conservatives far more likely than Democrats and self-identified liberals to reject consensus scientific findings, particularly in the areas of climate change and COVID-19 response. In 2020, 88 percent of Democrats agreed with scientific findings that climate change was a major threat to the well-being of the United States, but only 31 percent of Republicans thought so.6 Similarly, 94 percent of Democrats believe that the documented increase in global temperature is due to human activities (again, consistent with the scientific consensus), but only 69 percent of Republicans do. When it comes to the question of whether the globe is warming at all, the proportion of Republicans accepting that conclusion has decreased since 2000, from about 75 percent to only about 55 percent, even as scientists have declared the fact of global warming to be “unequivocal.”7 These patterns cannot be linked in any obvious way to who holds the presidency. Democratic acceptance of climate science and concern about climate change increased during both the Obama and Trump administrations, but Republican views were largely unchanged until 2019, when extreme weather events-including the largest fire in California history-may have shifted some people's views.8
There is a similar pattern in reactions to COVID-19. Most Democrats support mask-wearing; most Republicans do not.9 Almost all Democrats are or plan to be vaccinated; many Republicans are not vaccinated and do not plan to be. In counties that Joe Biden won in the 2020 presidential election, 52.8 percent of people were fully vaccinated by September 2021, but in counties that went to Donald Trump, the rate was 39.9 percent.10 At that time, nearly half of all unvaccinated people identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning. Republican confidence in science dropped during the Trump administration: a 2021 Pew survey found a striking decline in Republican confidence that “science has largely had a positive effect on society,” from 70 percent in January 2019 to 54 percent in March 2021, with no similar decline among Democrats.11
These patterns cannot be attributed to scientific illiteracy. Researchers have found that scientific literacy and educational attainment do not predict attitudes related to specific science controversies. In general, higher education correlates with positive perceptions of science, yet highly educated Republicans are more likely than less educated ones to reject climate science or think that scientists

In our 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, we showed that climate-change denial was grounded in conservative hostility toward “Big Government,” in particular the idea that government regulation of the marketplace-whether in response to environmental issues, public health crises, or other social problems-was a step on a slippery slope toward socialism.14 Also in 2010, Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap proposed that American conservatives tended to reject “impact” sciences - those concerned with identifying environmental and health damages-but not “production” sciences, those that support business and industry.15 In other words, conservatives are not rejecting science tout court, but rejecting sciences that undergird or might be perceived to demonstrate the need for government action. The problem with the “impact” framing, however, is that any science can become an impact science if scientists discover something that points to the need for government regulation. The scientists who discovered the ozone hole and acid rain did not think of themselves as environmentalists, or even environmental scientists. But they discovered problems created by activities such as burning fossil fuels, driving cars, and using refrigerants that could only be fixed by measures to reduce or otherwise control those activities. The solutions involved national government regulations and international treaties. The “merchants of doubt” did not oppose these laws and treaties because they doubted the science; they doubted the science because they opposed these laws and treaties.

So, there you have it. I had read something similar in a news article, but didn't realize that a study had been done on why so many conservatives deny science. Now it makes sense. If science tells me that driving my RAM truck is harmful to the environment, fuck you science! That seems to be the way too many conservatives view science, especially climate change and of course, COVID precautions.
 

10 Day Weather-Santa Monica, CA​

As of 2:05 pm PST

Gale Warning +6 More​


Today​

Rain/Wind
57°/55°
100%
SE 20 mph

I guess it's not such a lovely sunny day in Santa Monica, not with flooding and gale force winds.

The entire coastal area of California has been and will be experiencing some rather extreme weather for the next day or two, not that any of it could possibly be related to climate change./s. Stay safe Coastal Californians. Hope deniers took the warnings seriously too. ☔
 

10 Day Weather-Santa Monica, CA​

As of 2:05 pm PST

Gale Warning +6 More


Today​

Rain/Wind
57°/55°
100%
SE 20 mph

I guess it's not such a lovely sunny day in Santa Monica, not with flooding and gale force winds.

The entire coastal area of California has been and will be experiencing some rather extreme weather for the next day or two, not that any of it could possibly be related to climate change./s. Stay safe Coastal Californians. Hope deniers took the warnings seriously too. ☔
Meh. When I was a teen living in Montecito we'd laugh at such forecasts. Yeah, the hills behind Santa Barbara were prone to floods, fires and landslides, but the coast wasn't so much. Big storms weren't that big, thanks to the Channel Islands, and the storm surf was always a hoot. Even if the normal surf spots were all blown out you could find places with monster backwash, which could launch a person on a longboard 20 feet in the air, and temperatures were always mild, no matter what. If you were trying to put the fear of god into Swizzy, I think it was a fail.
 

10 Day Weather-Santa Monica, CA​

As of 2:05 pm PST

Gale Warning +6 More


Today​

Rain/Wind
57°/55°
100%
SE 20 mph

I guess it's not such a lovely sunny day in Santa Monica, not with flooding and gale force winds.

The entire coastal area of California has been and will be experiencing some rather extreme weather for the next day or two, not that any of it could possibly be related to climate change./s. Stay safe Coastal Californians. Hope deniers took the warnings seriously too. ☔
Meh. When I was a teen living in Montecito we'd laugh at such forecasts. Yeah, the hills behind Santa Barbara were prone to floods, fires and landslides, but the coast wasn't so much. Big storms weren't that big, thanks to the Channel Islands, and the storm surf was always a hoot. Even if the normal surf spots were all blown out you could find places with monster backwash, which could launch a person on a longboard 20 feet in the air, and temperatures were always mild, no matter what. If you were trying to put the fear of god into Swizzy, I think it was a fail.
You may be right, but I've read that some of these storms will be record breaking. I was just tired of reading how beautiful the weather was every fucking single day in sunny Santa Monica. And, no. I'm not wishing harm on anyone, just pointing out that even sunny Santa Monica sometimes has terrible weather, which may or may not be related to climate change. Still, I would never choose to live near a coast at this time in history. I had wanted to live in Northern Florida when we retired, but instead we sold our little condo and decided to stay inland. Considering what Florida has become politically, that was a good decision.
 
I would never choose to live near a coast at this time in history.
I would, except for the people. The So Cal coastline isn’t FL. Some cliffs do crumble into the sea, but it isn’t all going be underwater when you wake up one morning. And yes, it IS virtually always “yet another beautiful day” with moderate temperatures in Santa Monica*. Even now, Ventura County is about as far south as the warnings extend. There are slides in Montecito, but that’s to be expected.
The downside IMO, other than the crowds, is the monotony of that beautiful weather. It does oddly weigh on one (me) after a while.

Checked the surf reports - 3-5ft and mostly blown out due to onshore winds.
Further north it was running 4-6’ but still bad conditions. Nothing unusual or alarming.
 
Back
Top Bottom