Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Study - Climate Change Deniers More Likely to Believe In Crazy Conspiracies


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
66 replies to this topic

#37 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,801
  • Reputation: 548
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:09 PM

Everything deserves a healthy dose of skepticism...by those that are knowledgeable enough to be skeptics.

#38 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,388
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

Much of modern science (and all of some branches) is completely untestable. So you'll need to update your understanding.


And this is why you continue to fail

#39 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

Much of modern science (and all of some branches) is completely untestable. So you'll need to update your understanding.


Dont know if I would say completely untestable. For global warming, you obviously cant test what the climate would be if humans never released CO2, but you can test the concepts involved. You can test the heat capacity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, you can test the chemical properties of gas mixtures found in the atmosphere, you can test how air with higher CO2 concentrations dissolves along the air water boundary to raise the pH of ocean water.

You can test the concepts involved if nothing else.

#40 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

why isn't it no longer called global warming? doesn't the climate change like min by min?

or is this like partly cloudy vs partly sunny?


If I remember correctly, there was a concerted effort by global warming deniers to rename global warming to something that sounds less threatening. I first remember hearing it from people in the Bush administration

#41 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:16 PM

Dont know if I would say completely untestable. For global warming, you obviously cant test what the climate would be if humans never released CO2, but you can test the concepts involved. You can test the heat capacity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, you can test the chemical properties of gas mixtures found in the atmosphere, you can test how air with higher CO2 concentrations dissolves along the air water boundary to raise the pH of ocean water.

You can test the concepts involved if nothing else.


I was thinking more along the lines of high level astrophysics and meta-theories like String Theory.

#42 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:39 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of high level astrophysics and meta-theories like String Theory.


What do you think the discovery of the Higgs Boson was about? Certainly Physics has its share of hard to test theories, but its not for lack of trying (like this telescope they're sending into space to search for evidence of dark matter)

#43 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,817
  • Reputation: 3,103
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:30 PM

and do we have an answer for the official age of the earth and how it relates to a small sample size of avg temp's due to just barely over a 100 yrs of data?

come on guys. i know you can nail this one.

#44 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:39 PM

and do we have an answer for the official age of the earth and how it relates to a small sample size of avg temp's due to just barely over a 100 yrs of data?

come on guys. i know you can nail this one.


The earth is 4.54 billion years old and completely unsuitable for life for ~4 billion of those years

#45 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,817
  • Reputation: 3,103
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:48 PM

thats the offical consensus among scientists? and the age is crucial to climate change how? im not being funny either. if its that old and we only have so much data to go on temp wise, i don't see the need to even worry about the age part.

recency bias could have an adverse effect on this topic and conclusions.

#46 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,589
  • Reputation: 2,137
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere — from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere.

and do we have an answer for the official age of the earth and how it relates to a small sample size of avg temp's due to just barely over a 100 yrs of data?

come on guys. i know you can nail this one.

Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years. http://www.antarctic...orebriefing.php

#47 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,795
  • Reputation: 2,493
Moderators

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:37 PM

The temps suitable for human civilization are a recent phenomenon, so yes there is some bias towards that.

#48 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,817
  • Reputation: 3,103
HUDDLER

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:59 PM

bias in the sense of using one report to fit one's argument. yes, temps and it's impact on humans are no question kind of a big deal.

again, i have no issue at all with trying to fix things in the environment. my whole beef is some groups or individuals have hitched their wagons to climate change with no goal or motive to fix anything but their bank accts.

and the masses will take whatever is thrown their way, the deniers or the truthers, and not vet things and do their own DD.