Watts Up With That?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

This is a site my grandfather often looks at concerning climate change.

WattsUpWithThat.com

I was curious, what do people think of this? Also, don't post a response simply to refute it because it is in opposition to your current position on the matter. If you're familiar with it or will take the time to read through some of the articles and get a "feel" for it... then by all means, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

My grandfather is positively convinced climate change isn't a thing but rather a conspiracy. Not so much of everyone being on the same page necessarily but one with big money backers(opposite of oil, coil, etc) funneling millions if not billions into swaying the scientific consensus towards it being a man-made phenomena through manipulation and or direct bribery. I know many will essentially say, "Conspiracies don't warrant consideration," and while that's fine... it's also not exactly fair. As conspiracies definitely exist, even on larger scale, and definitely impact all of us whether we want to accept that or not.

It's sort of what happens when you have an upper-elite-class that we're basically barred off from but who can still influence everything from on-up-high. Inevitable really and therefore makes it hard to take everything at face value, sadly.

I think what also pushed him in that direction was the answers being brought up by our politicians. At least, the ones here in the States. He feels like the "carbon tax" and basically all of these concepts of punishment are nothing more than a means by which to reap more money and garner more control from the top. They're not as much of an answer as a bad joke; therefore, his opinion on the matter was dissuaded from belief on the go as a result. Which is why, again, these dumbasses shouldn't be involved in the first place because they're just in it for themselves, true or not true. That's basically the way it is with anything and why little ever seems to work out in our favor these days.

Things are not done for the greater sum nor even a fairly sized minority but rather for a very, very elite few. Virtually no-one benefits save them.

So, I don't know. I don't see this going anywhere good. It's become yet again, a polarizing thing and once it gives in either direction I think it's going to be ugly.

[Garnier Fructis]

I don't really have an opinion because for whatever reason, the site takes godawfully long to load on my computer. So I just stopped trying a while ago.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I don't really have an opinion because for whatever reason, the site takes godawfully long to load on my computer. So I just stopped trying a while ago.

Strange, loaded up instantly for me. .-.

[Malachi256]

Strange, loaded up instantly for me. .-.

Loads fine for me too.

Looks like a standard news/info aggregate for skeptics. I clicked on the NASA link about "Greening of the Earth" and there was a nice summary, plus a link to the Nature article at the bottom. So it passes the basic smell test /shrug.

[Independent voter]

Show him this graph, it's from Bloomburg, a conservative news site.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Loads fine for me too.

Looks like a standard news/info aggregate for skeptics. I clicked on the NASA link about "Greening of the Earth" and there was a nice summary, plus a link to the Nature article at the bottom. So it passes the basic smell test /shrug.

Yes, they link articles(sometimes exclusively and without rebuke within the page itself) that support man-made climate change. I guess so people stay up to date on what's being presented rather than just simply seeing one-side of the argument all the time.

[Garnier Fructis]

Show him this graph, it's from Bloomburg, a conservative news site.

Bloomberg isn't really all that conservative.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Show him this graph, it's from Bloomburg, a conservative news site.

Conservative and liberal don't mean much when it comes to media outlets these days.

In fact, arguably, Bloomburg would be something he'd like to have nothing to do with. Hell, he can't even stand Fox these days. Feels like it's just another extension of the authoritarian wing within this country with some different ideas on how to fuck people.

[PC2]

It's sort of what happens when you have an upper-elite-class that we're basically barred off from but who can still influence everything from on-up-high.

How are you barred off from rich people? A lot of rich people live in cities and areas with no gates. Upper class people pass other people all the time.

That's basically the way it is with anything and why little ever seems to work out in our favor these days.

In whose favor? Let us know if you have any easy solutions.

I don't see this going anywhere good. It's become yet again, a polarizing thing and once it gives in either direction I think it's going to be ugly.

How are things going to get ugly? People have been fear mongering about this for a long time, yet agriculture output has remained healthy all throughout.

Alternative energy technology has been getting better and better every decade. There is good reason to be optimistic.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

How are you barred off from rich people? A lot of rich people live in cities and areas with no gates. Upper class people pass other people all the time.



In whose favor? Let us know if you have any easy solutions.



How are things going to get ugly? People have been fear mongering about this for a long time, yet agriculture output has remained healthy all throughout.

Alternative fuel technology has been getting better and better every decade. There is good reason to be optimistic.

...I'm just face-palming right now. I feel like someone asked me why 2+2 equals 4. Going to ignore this post outright.

Can I actually get some thoughts on the site in question here?

[Deleted]

the whole article is bleh based on a "Study" that is meh.

they don't actually have any evidence. they have published a paper to attribute something to climate change with no actual evidence of it. All they have done is run computer models with no actual data to back it up.

they also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of partial pressure and dissolution of gases in water.

it also has things like this...

"Loss of oxygen in the ocean is one of the serious side effects of a warming atmosphere, and a major threat to marine life"

followed by this..

"It’s been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change"

they cannot attribute the changes to climate change, but claim that they can predict when climate change will overcome natural variability, even though they admit themselves, that they cannot actually attribute the de oxygenation to climate change.

seems like another paper written by non scientists who need to actually go and do some proper field work rather than playing with their fantasy world in computer labs.

then the real kicker at the end.

"We need comprehensive and sustained observations of what’s going on in the ocean to compare with what we’re learning from our models and to understand the full impact of a changing climate,

we make all these.. assumptions, but then say "actually.. we don't have a fucking clue and need actual field study to determine what's happening"

[PC2]

Going to ignore this post outright.

Except you didn't.

[alexw]

...I'm just face-palming right now. I feel like someone asked me why 2+2 equals 4. Going to ignore this post outright.

Can I actually get some thoughts on the site in question here?

The site you linked is the AGW denialists bible. Like all science denialists it uses trash data or twists the data to present a false picture or one that is misleading. Hence the vast overwhelming majority of the evidence shows AGW is real, man is the cause, and that there is absolutely nothing else that can explain it, but then places like that trash site you linked will cherry-pick a few studies which may be ambiguous or have data that is easy to use to mislead, and that is exactly what they do with it. Overall its not somewhere you go to get evidence, but where if you are a reality denialist where you go to feed your confirmation bias which is what your grandfather is doing.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

The site you linked is the AGW denialists bible. Like all science denialists it uses trash data or twists the data to present a false picture or one that is misleading. Hence the vast overwhelming majority of the evidence shows AGW is real, man is the cause, and that there is absolutely nothing else that can explain it, but then places like that trash site you linked will cherry-pick a few studies which may be ambiguous or have data that is easy to use to mislead, and that is exactly what they do with it. Overall its not somewhere you go to get evidence, but where if you are a reality denialist where you go to feed your confirmation bias which is what your grandfather is doing.

...but wouldn't it arguably what other people do who flock to a given site to feed their belief for AGW? I mean let's be fair here, most supporters don't even know what the fuck is going on. I just recently weighed in favor of it after a long period of uncertainty/denial and even I had a lot more to bring to the table than they did whilst they harped on my hesitation like it was a negative. So I think you're being a bit harsh in your view of the "opposition" and it's one of the reasons I don't really advocate on behalf of AGW. I don't want to be involved with the hate and ignorance that one side espouses while trying to paint the opposite just that.

Not to mention a lot of the solutions we could develop and introduce would be accepted widely if done right without the need of AGW 'doom and gloom' being raised over their head. Good ideas are good ideas. Bad ideas are bad ideas. It is the latter that help to create so much denial and skepticism in the first place with a populace that is largely exhausted by our leaders and their incompetence/selfishness.

[PC2]

...but wouldn't it arguably what other people do who flock to a given site to feed their belief for AGW? I mean let's be fair here, most supporters don't even know what the fuck is going on. I just recently weighed in favor of it after a long period of uncertainty/denial and even I had a lot more to bring to the table than they did whilst they harped on my hesitation like it was a negative. So I think you're being a bit harsh in your view of the "opposition" and it's one of the reasons I don't really advocate on behalf of AGW. I don't want to be involved with the hate and ignorance that one side espouses while trying to paint the opposite just that.

But why does it matter what people think about AGW? All that matters are the solutions and there is currently no way to get rid of a majority of emissions within a decade. All we can do is innovate with new technology.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

But why does it matter what people think about AGW? All that matters are the solutions and there is currently no way to get rid of a majority of emissions within a decade. All we can do is innovate with new technology.

Yes but we're not hearing about innovating. We're not hearing about giving incentives. What we're hearing about is more taxes, more government control, etc... etc...

...and to be fair, some of these people, even if believing in AGW, would rather see this world be destroyed than give anything more to this government. So in other words, if the government wants to keep offering shitty solutions that only feeds back into it, then the people need to deal with this in their own ways.

All they're doing is creating unnecessary conflict and divide.

[Grimbold21]

Climate change...

Let the circle jerk commence....again.

[unfilteredJW]

Climate change...

Let the circle jerk commence....again.

Round 456!

Let's do this.

[PC2]

Yes but we're not hearing about innovating.

True, that is why I always remind people of the billions we spend on the issue through the NSF, universities, NASA, the DoE national laboratories, etc. For some reason people think we are sitting on our hands when in fact we work towards solutions every day.

[Annoying]

I know many will essentially say, "Conspiracies don't warrant consideration," and while that's fine... it's also not exactly fair.

Alas, while it might not be "fair", discussion of conspiracy theories is a forbidden topic on this forum. Closing this.