Public Opinion on Man-Made Climate Change Has Shifted

[Tico]

I'm quite glad the shift is happening.

[Tijuana]

How did you manage to quantify level of dissent? Besides, if all the scientists agreed 100% on everything there wouldn't even be new papers.

No, I'm talking about people that are having trouble with the basic concepts, some of which have been known for over 100 years.

The issue that nearly every skeptic has, is the fake computer models that shows what will happen in the future. So far, not a single one of them has come true. If we go back to every model, and look at what we have now, none of them came true, based on where we are now. Yet, if you say these models are bullshit, you are now a climate denier. It's science, yes. However, it has a following akin to a cult. It's not still science when you don't let anyone question the science.

[Garnier Fructis]

I said it's NOT something that takes place in 50 years...and Effects do you speak of? Is your front yard nothing but dust? Have you ran out of water to drink? Is it 1 degree hotter today than the same day last year? Spare me, I live in sunny California and we have just as hot summers and cold winters as we had 30 years ago. They also said, "Oh no drought!! California is dying!! We're going to run out of water!! Climate change!!." And these past 2 months we've had more rain then we've had in the past 5 years. Sigh.

Oh, I misread. And that makes your point even more wrong, holy shit. And I'm not sure what part of 'long unusual drought' followed by 'record setting rain' you missed, but both of those events are abnormal.

As far as current effects? The ranges of some species have begun to change in ways that can be predicted by warming. Hell, weather events that we used to consider extreme and unlikely are not that unlikely anymore: we've seen an increase in record breaking floods and droughts and shit. Either we're implausibly unlucky, or the climate has changed. In some areas, the chance of things like severe heat waves has doubled due to global warming.

[seventysix]

No. They're not the same.

Don't tarnish the image of one of my favorite actors with your nonsense.

Climate is literally long term weather, it's the same damn thing regardless of what your political beliefs employ you too think. Which is what my original post detailed, that you, nor you, nor you or you, will be around to see the effects of climate change.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I misread. And that makes your point even more wrong, holy shit. And I'm not sure what part of 'long unusual drought' followed by 'record setting rain' you missed, but both of those events are abnormal.

As far as current effects? The ranges of some species have begun to change in ways that can be predicted by warming. Hell, weather events that we used to consider extreme and unlikely are not that unlikely anymore: we've seen an increase in record breaking floods and droughts and shit. Either we're implausibly unlucky, or the climate has changed. In some areas, the chance of things like severe heat waves has doubled due to global warming.

You're right, absolutely. But these are circular patterns, they come and go, and they'll come and go again, I'm talking about long term devastating climate change effects this will be no where in yours or my lifetimes, believe it or not, I guess.

[Garnier Fructis]

The issue that nearly every skeptic has, is the fake computer models that shows what will happen in the future. So far, not a single one of them has come true. If we go back to every model, and look at what we have now, none of them came true, based on where we are now. Yet, if you say these models are bullshit, you are now a climate denier. It's science, yes. However, it has a following akin to a cult. It's not still science when you don't let anyone question the science.

Computer models that show what will happen in the future given certain emissions scenarios. The fact that skeptics dishonestly pick the wrong ones to compare to reality is not evidence that computer models are wrong. It's evidence that skeptics either don't understand what projections are, or they do and they're trying to con you. The assertion that 'none of them came true' demands justification.

The models are clearly not perfect. But they are still rather accurate, in fact they are very accurate compared to known data.

[Tijuana]

They believe in the models, which are not exact. So by default they don't agree at the EXACT same degree because models are not exact. How is this relevant anyway?

- - - Updated - - -



Please link us every model and show us how none of them came true.

Because the models have never been right. They always show that the effects would be worse by now, when we go back and look at the old models. If you compare standards on the ground today, with what was predicted, they don't align, and they never have.

[Garnier Fructis]

You're right, absolutely. But these are circular patterns, they come and go, and they'll come and go again, I'm talking about long term devastating climate change effects this will be no where in yours or my lifetimes, believe it or not, I guess.

They are not circular patterns, disasters don't happen on cycles. It's stochastic, and we've shifted the probability distributions involved.

[seventysix]

They are not circular patterns, disasters don't happen on cycles. It's stochastic, and we've shifted the probability distributions involved.

Absolutely, they are. The only difference is that now everyone is more informed on every little detail about the flood at pete's farm via social media and the internet, floods, storms, the whole 9 yards have been happening forever.

and don't you think that's a little contradicting to your point saying it's random?

[Tijuana]

Computer models that show what will happen in the future given certain emissions scenarios. The fact that skeptics dishonestly pick the wrong ones to compare to reality is not evidence that computer models are wrong. It's evidence that skeptics either don't understand what projections are, or they do and they're trying to con you. The assertion that 'none of them came true' demands justification.

The models are clearly not perfect. But they are still rather accurate, in fact they are very accurate compared to known data.

Show me a single one that has predicted correctly since the time it was given. Let's say, 10 years past, as a standard.

[Garnier Fructis]

Absolutely, they are. The only difference is that now everyone is more informed on every little detail about the flood at pete's farm via social media and the internet, floods, storms, the whole 9 yards have been happening forever.

and don't you think that's a little contradicting to your point saying it's random?

There's no contradiction unless you don't understand anything about statistics and probability. The temperature in a box is also stochastic, but we can pretty clearly tell you many things about it. Even though it's 'random'.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me a single one that has predicted correctly since the time it was given. Let's say, 10 years past, as a standard.

How about you justify your horseshit instead of spewing it and demanding we debunk it. Also, I mentioned it earlier, but 'predictions' and 'projections' are not the same. The difference seems to be a fundamental stumbling block among the 'models are wrong' crowd.

[Endus]

The issue that nearly every skeptic has, is the fake computer models that shows what will happen in the future. So far, not a single one of them has come true. If we go back to every model, and look at what we have now, none of them came true, based on where we are now.

This is a lie. An outrageously bald-faced one, at that.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tions-accurate
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati...owreliable.pdf

The models have been accurate. This whole time. As you'd know if you informed yourself rather than blindly believing propaganda pieces.

Also, you again demonstrate that you don't even understand what models are. They're not hard predictions. They're projections of specific guesses. "If emissions trends keep on like X, temperatures will warm within range Y to Z by year A". If those emissions trends significantly change, then we're not living in a situation that that particular model addresses.

Yet, if you say these models are bullshit, you are now a climate denier. It's science, yes. However, it has a following akin to a cult. It's not still science when you don't let anyone question the science.

You'd need to have some grounds for claiming those models are "bullshit", when the science backs them completely.

Those grounds are usually where the anti-science climate denial comes in.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me a single one that has predicted correctly since the time it was given. Let's say, 10 years past, as a standard.

The IPCC models have been accurate going back as far as they've been operating, so 1990. That's 26 years. See above links.

- - - Updated - - -

Computer models that show what will happen in the future given certain emissions scenarios. The fact that skeptics dishonestly pick the wrong ones to compare to reality is not evidence that computer models are wrong. It's evidence that skeptics either don't understand what projections are, or they do and they're trying to con you. The assertion that 'none of them came true' demands justification.

The models are clearly not perfect. But they are still rather accurate, in fact they are very accurate compared to known data.

Their other favorite tactic is ignoring that models inevitably predict a range of probable outcomes, so they take the median projection, and if temperatures don't line up with that median EXACTLY, the model is "wrong", even if the temperatures ARE within that probable range that they've excluded (and temperatures have been).

[Tijuana]

This is a lie. An outrageously bald-faced one, at that.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...tions-accurate
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati...owreliable.pdf

The models have been accurate. This whole time. As you'd know if you informed yourself rather than blindly believing propaganda pieces.

Also, you again demonstrate that you don't even understand what models are. They're not hard predictions. They're projections of specific guesses. "If emissions trends keep on like X, temperatures will warm within range Y to Z by year A". If those emissions trends significantly change, then we're not living in a situation that that particular model addresses.



You'd need to have some grounds for claiming those models are "bullshit", when the science backs them completely.

Those grounds are usually where the anti-science climate denial comes in.

- - - Updated - - -



The IPCC models have been accurate going back as far as they've been operating, so 1990. That's 26 years. See above links.

- - - Updated - - -



Their other favorite tactic is ignoring that models inevitably predict a range of probable outcomes, so they take the median projection, and if temperatures don't line up with that median EXACTLY, the model is "wrong", even if the temperatures ARE within that probable range that they've excluded (and temperatures have been).

From your PDF: "Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale
problems also remain."

- - - Updated - - -

Never? Source please. If you're going to continue to refuse to back up your arguments with zero sources of your claims, stop replying.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because we had no way of gathering data on this information before facebook.

Source that I am wrong, please. Cute game; two can play it.

[Queen of Hamsters]

It's becoming more and more accepted for emotions and opinion to trump (!) facts. I wouldn't hold my breath (but might have to due to pollution) about this trend growing.

[Tijuana]

You said every single model was wrong so why can't you just pick one to prove your claim? You're the one who claimed they were all wrong. I'm just asking you to back that claim up. I never claimed anything.

You do this shit in every thread. You provide no real argument and zero sources and just shout at everyone about how wrong they are.

Ok let's try this. Which one is your favorite?

It's wrong.

I'm not shouting at anyone. I just have a different opinion than yours. If your opinion is so unassailable, why do you mind that mine is different?

[Endus]

From your PDF: "Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale
problems also remain."

Hey, look, cherry-picking and ignoring context. Try reading the rest of that parapraph, champ.

The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

Which is unsurprising to anyone who understands these models. This is what creates the range of uncertainty that the models clearly provide for. And which warming trends have remained within. So I repeat; all you're doing here is demonstrating a complete failure to grasp what the concept of a "model" is, and what they are used for.

Plus, it caps off with;

Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

So even accepting that uncertainty, the conclusion is unanimous and clear. So you're still just completely wrong.

[seventysix]

Yes, because we had no way of gathering data on this information before facebook.

Data Shmata, just accept that you're going to die long before it's ever relevant, you'll live your sad life with plenty of water and sunshine and then you will die, just like myself and everyone else on this thread, why argue about it?

[alexw]

Because the models have never been right. They always show that the effects would be worse by now, when we go back and look at the old models. If you compare standards on the ground today, with what was predicted, they don't align, and they never have.

Ahhh you probably mean this denialist bullcrap -



Here's thing the models predict surface temperatures, not temperatures at 50,000 feet.

Now here is the reality of what was predicted vs actual temperature -



Yellow = predicted range of temperature increase in first IPCC report, green = second, blue = third, red fourth.

Hence stripping out the bullshit and lies of the denialists shows that though a little towards the lower end of projections they are still in general agreement. The idea that the models have never been right is just plain false.

[Tijuana]

Hey, look, cherry-picking and ignoring context. Try reading the rest of that parapraph, champ.

The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

Which is unsurprising to anyone who understands these models. This is what creates the range of uncertainty that the models clearly provide for. And which warming trends have remained within. So I repeat; all you're doing here is demonstrating a complete failure to grasp what the concept of a "model" is, and what they are used for.

Plus, it caps off with;

Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.

So even accepting that uncertainty, the conclusion is unanimous and clear. So you're still just completely wrong.

So basically, you are saying this: they are not accurate, but given how hard it is to make them accurate, we feel we did a bang up job.

That isn't exactly a fair standard, imho.

I mean, you guys said we would be underwater by now. You said Atlantic City would have to close the boardwalk. Where is the rise in sea level?

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh you probably mean this denialist bullcrap -



Here's thing the models predict surface temperatures, not temperatures at 50,000 feet.

Now here is the reality of what was predicted vs actual temperature -



Yellow = predicted range of temperature increase in first IPCC report, green = second, blue = third, red fourth.

Hence stripping out the bullshit and lies of the denialists shows that though a little towards the lower end of projections they are still in general agreement. The idea that the models have never been right is just plain false.

Post some more graphs. I love these. How many feet below sea level is Tampa now?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it that, the science that tells us the end is near, is unassailable, yet the science that takes active measures, is "too risky"? Why do we only trust the science when the answer is live in a cave? Why don't we trust the science that takes steps to correct?

[seventysix]

So, fuck everyone else that lives after me?

Thanks for admitting you're a selfish fuck.

- - - Updated - - -
.

On a serious note, your children won't be effected either, nor their children..but maybe their children's children. The earth will die, and theres nothing you can do to stop it..and in another millennium...it may spring back to life, who knows.

[Endus]

So basically, you are saying this: they are not accurate, but given how hard it is to make them accurate, we feel we did a bang up job.

False. I'm saying they ARE accurate. And you're lying when you state that they aren't. Because they very much are. You just don't understand what "accuracy" means. And each time you're challenged, you just move the goalposts and lie again, because you know the shit you're saying can't be defended.