Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought’ say scientists

  1. #11
    El Psy Kongroo Lunchboxxy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,570
    Thanks
    15863

    From
    Oregon
    Ah, Judith Curry. That explains it

    The study questioning the future intensity of climate change was carried out by American climatologist Judith Curry and UK mathematician Nick Lewis.
    Thanks from Arkady, Babba, Dangermouse and 1 others

  2. #12
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,836
    Thanks
    32942

    From
    Border Fence
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    As we the so called deniers have been saying for years.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/95...-bad-on-planet
    Why would you believe one study over another?

    If science is incapable to correctly gauge the situation, then why would more science be any more correct?

    If Science is bunk...then all science is bunk.

    If you claim some science is good and other science is bad...then what is your criteria in choosing good science over bad?

    Seems to me you are choosing science based on which science you LIKE.
    Thanks from OldGaffer, Arkady and Dangermouse

  3. #13
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    What this shows is the models are exaggerated lies
    Remember: there are studies criticizing those models in both directions. You could as easily cherry-pick the opposite kind of study, and say that it shows that the models are badly underestimating the warming that is going to happen. That's what I was talking about in my post.

    There are thousands of studies going on, and propagandists can sift through those and cherry-pick whichever ones happen to say what they want to believe. Then they can deliver those, through the usual propaganda outlets, to the partisan masses. In this case, for example, you're citing to an infamous British tabloid. My guess is that you're not a daily reader of British newspapers, much less of a disreputable tabloid like the Daily Express, right? So, you didn't come across this study simply as part of reading through the whole paper. Instead, my guess is that you are a regular reader of a right-wing propaganda clearing house, like Daily Wire, a right-wing reddit, or ClimateDepot. Those clearing houses do the work of reading through hundreds of papers around the world, looking for anything that can be used to bolster the prejudices of American conservatives. Then they cherry-pick those stories, and serve them up, relying on their readers to then further disseminate that material through chat boards, social media, etc.

    Am I right that this is how you encountered the story? Anyway, the point I'm making is that some of us operate differently. Rather than seizing on whatever individual studies happen to be saying something that we feel bolsters our argument, we instead try to get an honest view of what the overall state of the scientific understanding is. That comes not from consuming a selection of individual studies carefully curated for us by partisan outlets, but instead by looking at the big meta-analyses published by large teams of experts who have the time to review thousands of studies, and the training and background to weigh them meaningfully against each other. That's how I operate, and I'd urge you to do the same.
    Last edited by Arkady; 27th April 2018 at 04:57 AM.
    Thanks from Babba, Dangermouse and Blues63

  4. #14
    Member Arkady's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,334
    Thanks
    3279

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunchboxxy View Post
    Ah, Judith Curry. That explains it
    Whenever I see a climate study being promoted by a right-winger, I can be practically certain it came from one of just a tiny handful of researchers -- Curry being the leading suspect. I don't want to bash her too hard, because I think there's value in having contrarian scientists like her to kick the tires on the consensus views. The real problem here isn't with such scientists, who, whatever their motivations, are ultimately doing a service by challenging the ideas most other scientists have accepted. Rather, the problem is with the conservative propagandists and right-wing masses who lose track of the big picture -- mistaking a very tiny share of studies that happen to fit their prejudices for proof that the large share of studies they don't like are wrong. That's a deeply dishonest approach.
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  5. #15
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,470
    Thanks
    1486

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    I think scientists shot themselves in the foot when they came up with the term "climate change" to describe catastrophic developments in the most benign manner possible. They should have coined something like "climate crisis" or "climate chaos." Choosing "climate change" is like calling the attack on Pearl Harbor "naval change."

  6. #16
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,388
    Thanks
    3994

    From
    East coast USA
    The truth is we are screwed. It's much worse than we thought and while we know the cause we are unwilling.
    We in our 50s will live without alarm, but the following generations are fucked.
    Let's hope that the powers to be learn to write off, what cannot be saved without financial ruin.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,388
    Thanks
    3994

    From
    East coast USA
    The banks are in for calamity in Florida. The world markets may falter

  8. #18
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,836
    Thanks
    32942

    From
    Border Fence
    If you believe Climate change is real, you would never want Coal mine companies to fuck up rivers.

    Since CC is not real, dumping coal mining trash in rivers wont hurt the environment.

    That is how science works. Not believing is Science protects the environment

    No Science...no problem

  9. #19
    #walkaway orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    3,052
    Thanks
    613

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    If you believe Climate change is real, you would never want Coal mine companies to fuck up rivers.

    Since CC is not real, dumping coal mining trash in rivers wont hurt the environment.

    That is how science works. Not believing is Science protects the environment

    No Science...no problem
    What do dirty rivers have to do with climate change?

  10. #20
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    68,911
    Thanks
    4498

    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Why would you believe one study over another?

    If science is incapable to correctly gauge the situation, then why would more science be any more correct?

    If Science is bunk...then all science is bunk.

    If you claim some science is good and other science is bad...then what is your criteria in choosing good science over bad?

    Seems to me you are choosing science based on which science you LIKE.
    So you admit we can't trust the science on Global Warming

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 91
    Last Post: 23rd January 2018, 10:36 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21st June 2015, 09:21 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 27th February 2014, 03:27 PM
  4. Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates
    By bluesman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 17th February 2009, 05:15 AM
  5. Scientists doubt climate change
    By Freedom for All in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 186
    Last Post: 7th January 2008, 06:14 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed