Is Global Warming real?

probably an education in how to read that graph. :)

That graph, plus the "hockey stick" graph, which shows recent time in greater detail.

This is the original, which has been revised in particulars, but the general remains the same. From the year 1000 to 1900, we see a slow cooling trend (from around -0.2 degrees below the 1961-1991 average to about -0.4 degrees below it), with a strong lift from 1900 or so onward.

michaelmann_hockeystick.jpg
 

log in or register to remove this ad


But then the counter argument is, and we've seen it in this thread, "I do not trust the data used/collected". Cause agenda.

The counter to that is twofold:

1) Produce actual *evidence* of agenda. Because "plausible-sounding story that there's an agenda" does not mean there actually is one, especially when we require an agenda covering hundreds to thousands of individuals.

2) Produce actual data yourself that can be reviewed. Saying, in essence, "I don't trust you so you must be incorrect," does not actually settle the question.

Which is to say, there's a, "put up or shut up," point. We are at it - really, beyond it, to the point of our being ludicrous.
 

The counter to that is twofold:

1) Produce actual *evidence* of agenda. Because "plausible-sounding story that there's an agenda" does not mean there actually is one, especially when we require an agenda covering hundreds to thousands of individuals.

2) Produce actual data yourself that can be reviewed. Saying, in essence, "I don't trust you so you must be incorrect," does not actually settle the question.

Which is to say, there's a, "put up or shut up," point. We are at it - really, beyond it, to the point of our being ludicrous.

Not that I disagree with you, but I'd rather have climate skeptics explain to me what they need to be convinced rather than ask them somethings most of them won't be able to give us.

I think asking them what they need might lead to them question their biases.
 


Not that I disagree with you, but I'd rather have climate skeptics explain to me what they need to be convinced rather than ask them somethings most of them won't be able to give us.

I think asking them what they need might lead to them question their biases.

In some cases this can work. But, there are some very common issues with the approach, based in the fact that we are not nearly so rational as we like to pretend.

Belief, or lack thereof, is often not based on a rational process. We frequently come to a state of beliefs for reasons other than factual evidence, and having come to a belief, we put an emotional stake in the ground regarding it, that we are often not really aware of. So, when you ask that question, they will come up with a rational or rationalized answer. You may meet the requirements of that answer... and they still don't believe you. While they said X was required, X actually didn't convince them.

Now, you have *two* issues

1) You *said* X would to it, and it didn't - a commitment was made, but failed to resolve. This brings in a bunch of issues of ego, and will tend to the person moving the goalposts, or otherwise digging in, and blaming you, or your data, or just about anything other than themselves for the breach of agreement. While occasionally in the real world you can manage this, and even *use* it (my wife has some great techniques for using this to eventually make a breakthrough with people), but on the internet it just becomes argument, and nobody gets anywhere.

2) You still haven't convinced them. (1) has probably led them to dig their emotional stake in even deeper, so you've actually made reverse progress.

In another post, a little later this afternoon, I would like to try to elucidate some of the common emotional stakes involved in this particular discussion.
 
Last edited:

Money is an issue. People's livelihoods ARE at stake.

Oddly, religion is one, too. We've had people- Sen. Issa was one, as I recall- who claim that God would not permit man to make a permanent harmful change in His creation. Pretty bad theology, I know. I'd love to ask him face-to-face if he could cite one Biblical instance of God preventing anyone from suffering the consequences of choices made contrary to God's edicts.
 

Of global warming, and general environmental degradation, are signs of the coming End of times and that is a good thing.
 

So, I'd like to elucidate a few of the emotional issues involved in the Climate Change discussion. Any and all of these can come into play, and make it very difficult to engage in constructive discussion. These things can make a person's brain into a crazed weasel within your skull, searching for *any* way to not accept points.

1) Us vs Them. In the US (and other places in the world) this topic is, for several reasons, attached to political parties/philosophies. Generally, people of the other party are The Enemy. And The Enemy cannot be allowed to win. A staunch member of one party or philosophy will emotionally resist the notion not on any merits of the notion, but because it comes from the other side - a kind of internal ad hominem, dismissing and resisting the notion due to who its proponents are.

2) Admitting you are Wrong. This is a big one. Nobody likes to admit they are wrong. If you say, even just to yourself, "I believe X is true," then any argument against X is a challenge to you, and engages not just your reason, but your ego - in effect, admitting you are wrong entails a sort of loss of status and face to the group, and nobody likes to face that.

3) Accepting Responsibility. Similar to admitting you are wrong - but this isn't just about an intellectual curiosity. This is *real*. If you accept antrhopogenic climate change, you accept that *WE* did this. We undertook Wrong Action, and have actively resisted correction, making things worse - it is confessing guilt, which most folks really don't like doing.

4) Accepting the Cost of Action. If you Accept Responsibility, you then also accept that it is up to you to do something. This will be difficult and expensive. It is so, so much easier to reject the notion, and not accept the cost and effort and change in our lives required to make it better.

5) This Crap Is Scary. We are talking about things that could mean, on the one end, massive property damage and loss of life, to the other end, destruction of all current coastal cities and perhaps reducing the planet to being no longer suitable to what we currently consider civilization. Humans are known to avoid fear and anxiety through denial and rejection.
 


Remove ads

Top