Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

You were talking about "global disruption with multiple consequences. One of the devastating effects of this disruption is to amplify natural and known climatic phenomena exponentially (and often unpredictably), to the point of catastrophe."
If by that you mean that millions of people will have to leave their homes, then we have misunderstood each other. Because I'm not arguing with it.

So we agree. However, it seems that I find this more catastrophic than you. Perhaps I am projecting myself too much into the humanitarian, sociological, economic and political consequences.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I can assure you, so far during our dialogue my positions have not changed in any way because all I have done is ask for an reasoning. But instead I got different links that either don't say what I asked for or say the same thing I did in my argumentation.

I'm going to give you a bit of the same kind of answer as to SamH, but lighter.
To the extent that current scientific evidence does not suit you in terms of justification or explanation of phenomena, what exactly are you waiting for? The warming thesis is a reasoning. To follow it, you will have to, like most scientists who have supported this hypothesis, perfect your knowledge of the subject, make your own observations and deductions.
This is not the place for confidences. But everyone at their own level can see the effects of warming. I'm on the front line. I have enough perspective to tell you that the changes are notable and rapid. Even if people remain largely in denial. This is mainly due to the fact that they have few escape routes. So they put their heads under the sand.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

If you understand what Occam's Razor is, tell me which explanation requires fewer entities?
The greenhouse explanation which is based on actual reality and can be verified.
Or one that is built on graphs, measurements of temperatures and levels of various emissions, correlations between those graphs, and on predictions with not always high confidence.

For me your explanation of the greenhouse would be (will be?) based on reality when it integrates temporal contingencies and a minimum of data (material, humanitarian, sociological, economic and political. Etc.). Who will live in your greenhouse, when and how?
On this more supported hypothesis, Occam's razor will be able to act. As it stands, this rationalism can only serve to rule out the greenhouse explanation completely, in favour of more constructed scientific theses.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I'm not inherently arguing against the possibility of rising water levels with rising average temperatures, but global drought is still not a clear-cut topic for me.

The subject of drought is also scientifically documented.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Fri 13 Oct 2023, 18:27.

Quote from SamH :

I think I've found the problem. Anthropogenic warming does not de facto cause catastrophes. We know that it was at least as warm as today in medieval times, and at least as warm as today in Roman times, without any possible anthropogenic component. We also know that modern warming is in part a "bounce back" from what is known as the Little Ice Age - also not anthropogenically influenced. So we know that warming is not automatically catastrophic.

As for distinguishing catastrophe from apocalypse, would that mean you agree that this article is silly hyperbolic nonsense quoting Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, perpetuating a false apocalypse narrative that's since failed to materialise? Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

If you hold the belief that modern warming WILL be catastrophic, simply because it has an anthropogenic component, the historical record does not support your fears. If you do believe that the very fact that some (even all?) of the current warming is dangerous simply because it's human-caused... well, that's just not correct or rational.

And I don't belong to any movement.

SamH. We have no reason to fight like this, it's ridiculous. I accept your truce.
You know that the fundamental difference with the climatic events to which you refer is time. Previous warmings had natural causes that are now explained. Never in the history of humanity has warming been so sudden. According to some estimates, it could completely cancel out the effect of the next cooling.

For the last time, I never spoke of an apocalypse in the sense in which you pretended to understand it.

Quote from SamH :

What the actual F. You literally don't read the text you quote, you incessantly conflate global warming with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and you're incapable of separating the real science from the emotionally charged political activism and the deliberately headline-grabbing media hype. The rest of your post is the same nonsense too. I don't know who Philippe Herlin is and I've never read his "gospel".

The difference between you and I, fundamentally, is that you are obsessed with the apocalyptic narrative and I am obsessed with the integrity of science. I KNOW that models do not produce real data and are tweaked by arbitrary variables to predict futures based on processes they don't sufficiently understand, and you don't know or care about anything but your baselessly claimed impending catastrophe.

You won't change, and neither will I. I've been here 18 years. I'll probably have to wait another 18 years or more for your ACTUAL evidence connecting global warming and CAGW.

I spoke of anthropogenic warming which would cause catastrophes, not of apocalyptic warming. The apocalypse is your invention and your fixation.

My ACTUAL evidence ? Are you kidding ? You stubbornly refuse to accept those of the entire scientific community because science is sick. You refuse to recognize the value of the tools used. By what magic can I convince you? Science has nothing to do here.

For Philippe Herlin, you belong by right to the same movement. Whether you know him or not. You have exactly the same speech as the army of trolls who have invaded the media for several months. This is where the real difference between you and me lies.

Don't worry, you'll have tired me out well before 18 years. And personally, in 18 years, I might already be underwater. Or will we be neighbours? I hesitate between fleeing to the Rock or joining the contingent of 6.5 million Flemings who are preparing to invade Wallonia.

Quote from SamH :

The one thing you and I had in common at the beginning of this thread was on the cult of absolute faith in climate catastrophism. I explained it and you demonstrated it.

The problem with you is that you are of boundless bad faith and that you mix subjects with the sole aim of creating confusion in people's minds. Any objective person who follows this thread will be able to attest to this.

Just because you consider Action Rebellion to be a doomsday cult doesn't mean that everyone who trusts science more than your ramblings is in "the cult of absolute faith in climate catastrophism." spare us your sophisms.

Quote from SamH :

you can find a warming trend but can find no discernible catastrophic anthropogenic signal

I will undoubtedly seem a little emotional to you, but I find that 50 million displaced people after the latest floods in Pakistan constitutes, in itself and as an example, a perceptible catastrophe. Without giving in to the sirens of the apocalypse. That's about a quarter of the country's population.

According to François Gemenne, IPCC rapporteur, this episode is "in a certain way" an indicator of what awaits us in the coming years. He specifies: “We know that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme events, both drought and floods.” Today, climate change is one of the main factors of migration and population displacement: "each year, 2 to 3 times more people are displaced by extreme climatic events than by violence and Conflicts."

The absence of (net) negative consequences at 2.3/2.4C to which you refer in no way means: No repercussions on humans, fauna or flora. Even less on the rising water levels or the increase in humidity in the air, which will be fatal to some of the populations exposed to these brutal changes.

Quote from SamH :

This is grossly incorrect. By definition a simulation is a simulation, not to be regarded as real data. But if you knew this topic you would know that GCMs are known to fail to match observed temperatures. Despite improving on their abilities to hindcast, they continue to overestimate temperature increases in their forecasts. This is not even controversial, but suffice it to say you are absolutely wrong

Here you are just repeating your gospel: namely the proposals of Philippe Herlin. (sorry for the Google translation, I don't have time to look for the source in English. The information comes from the AFP website).

Climate modeling, which makes it possible to understand how the climate works and predict its evolution over several decades, is based on robust physical equations.
Furthermore, climate change and its human origins are the subject of scientific consensus, and the last eight years have been the warmest recorded since pre-industrial times.

Climate modeling: robust physical equations
During his speech, Philippe Herlin affirms that global warming caused by human activities "is not a law of science". To support these remarks, he declares: “E = MC2 is an equation, it is verified […]. There is no equivalent equation between human CO2 emissions on the one hand and temperature increases on the other. »
This statement is false: "the climate models that we use to make climate projections and quantify the contribution of human activities to current global warming are models based on extremely well-established physical equations", explains to AFP a CNRS researcher at Dynamic Meteorology Laboratory. Camille Risi (archived link here), August 30.
"They are at least as well established as E = MC2. They are even much more fundamental equations. For example, the fundamental principle of dynamics, that is to say that the acceleration of an object is linked to the forces that apply to it. this object. Gravity, hydrostatic balance, the ideal gas law...", continues the specialist.
“Climate models are not statistical: they are physical models,” she adds. "A climate model used to make climate projections is a set of equations. Maybe not one equation, but hundreds of equations solved by a computer, because a human being could not solve that many at the same time. For make a climate projection of "The climate by 2100, for example, we simulate the weather every minute until 2100. The model solves the equations for every minute at all points on Earth until 2100."
Thus, these physical equations allow scientists to establish an undeniable link between CO2 emissions and the overall increase in temperature, by mathematical calculation.
“We know how to link cumulative CO2 emissions since the industrial era (1850) to the increase in temperature that we observe in the climate system,” confirms Roland Séférian (link archived here), climatologist and researcher at Météo France contacted by AFP in August. 30. "We know that for the warming attributed to CO2 alone, we have a mathematical relationship which tells us that for each thousand tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, the additional warming induced is 0.45 or 0.5 degrees on average", specifies the researcher. .
“This is an inviolable relationship of the climate system in the same way as “water wets” or “gravity governs the trajectory of masses on the planet”: we have evidence that they come from observations, model simulations or even mathematical theories. Proof of this is that we know that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100, we must limit emissions to 500 billion tonnes of CO2,” he adds.

Quote from SamH :

I don't understand, are you every single time missing the bit where I say that I recognise that there is an anthropogenic component to the warming? Or are you walking back your claim that we are facing an apocalyptic catastrophe? Because without the apocalypse, where is the imperative for us to spend the $21 trillion that we simply don't have on achieving "Net Zero"?

You recognize a component with no effects on global warming. It's an aberration. To stay in aberrations: I have already answered about the apocalypse.
As for the global cost, it means nothing about the anthropogenic origin of global warming that you dispute. Again, you are trying to cause confusion.

Quote from SamH :

I'll ignore the majority of what you post, since it remains infused with insult and denigration. I'm disinclined to encourage it, because it's vacuous behaviour and not substantive.

Mankind is unable to mitigate it because mankind appears unable to overwhelm natural variability.


"Mental obstruction"? "Inept remarks"? This is not language worth engaging with.

But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without simply telling me that someone else, or a bunch of someone elses, claim it, YOU provide evidence to support this belief that humans have caused global warming that is catastrophic. Point to the data that supports it, and articulate in YOUR words, an example of actual catastrophic global warming which is PROVEN (you like to use that word, so live by it) to be unequivocally caused by humans. Let's actually get down to the science of climatology rather than just the narrative. Provide one example of a climate scientist's prediction that has come to pass. There's been 40+ years of these predictions so it shouldn't be too difficult to find one, right?

Alternatively, continue with your invective and/or condescending tone. As much as you direct it at me, it actually reflects on you.

You devoted almost the entirety of our exchanges to ironizing about my supposed blind faith. While I only reported known data. And are you offended? Is this a joke?

You have incomplete and/or paradoxical speech.
Your sentence, to which I was referring, made no causal link between global warming and human activity. You say you recognize global warming and deny its effects. As if this warming had no influence or effects on climatic phenomena? I imagine that for you, climate refugees do not exist any more than the anthropogenic cause of warming?

Now you speak of a beneficial warming of 2.4°. At what human cost?

Climate models are capable of simulating actual warming. They also make it possible to simulate what would have happened if man had not emitted greenhouse gases over the last 150 years. We observe with these models that without these human emissions, there would be no warming: this is unshakeable proof that current warming is linked to human emissions. You seem to be the only one who doesn't know this!

These are not my personal arguments but those of Camille Risi Researcher in meteorology at the CNRS (a sort of Carmelite, I imagine in your phantasmagorical pantheon ?)

You have Panglossian type reasoning. You seek to make reality correspond to your will.

Quote from rane_nbg :

This topic has turned into psychotherapy sessions, guys I'm just glad that I recognized it early and backed out before I started to get angry. I'll leave it to you to keep discussing, there were some indeed good points from everyone.

The more mad-men, the more we laugh. Stay with us Rane.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

In fact, on both sides, I see positive consequences of the actions taken. The scientific mainstream influences the political mainstream. And politics promotes the fight against climate change at the state level by developing various laws to reduce emissions and so on. The only one who is not affected by this is China. The rest of the big ones have been trying to reduce their emissions for a decade for now or even longer.

I mean, if we manage to keep the average temperature rise until 2 degrees Celsius, then even according to existing studies, people and nature will not suffer much, and at the same time it may have a positive impact on global cooling, and perhaps even delay it or reduce its strength. Because global cooling brings clear and serious danger to people and nature.
And it is good if we can strike a balance between the existing global warming and the coming global cooling without harming nature or people.

The rise in water levels does not need to be extreme or very significant to be catastrophic, particularly for Polder areas. These unimpressive coastal changes from your point of view will have phenomenal societal repercussions. “Disaster” should not be understood in the Hollywood sense of the word. The accumulation of these natural disasters will profoundly (and too quickly) modify the current fragile balances and cause significant social unrest. According to already obsolete estimates, more than 300 million people will be displaced by rising water levels by 2050. This is just one of the great catastrophes of global warming.

Regarding our confusion, it was not only the link on anthropomorphism (a concept extremely more trivial and common than Occam's razor, at least in my latitudes...). Here too it is the accumulation and the method which amused me more than annoyed me (the nitpicking over simple terms + the verbal inundation). I was telling you this morning that unfortunately, I have too little time to devote to our chats. But I hope this parenthesis is closed.

For your thesis, I notice that your positions are evolving towards rationalism and utilitarianism and tend to move away from the confusionist esotericism of SamH. It was to encourage this type of evolution that I mentioned Occam's Razor. Scientific rationalism would have allowed you, for example, to immediately dismiss the thesis of the pretty little green greenhouse which could result from global warming. Or, to rule on the fact that it is dangerous for nature and for man.

Quote from SamH :

Avraham, I've already explained in many ways what my position on the science is, based on the science itself. I have examined the arguments, the evidence to support those arguments, and drawn my conclusion. Through that process I've concluded that climate change is real, it has always been real, and to some extent is additionally influenced by mankind. I find no good scientific evidence to support the claim that the global warming visible in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic, or that it can be mitigated by mankind. I find that climate science is immmature, is not progressing sufficietly and has in place no mechanisms to correct the issue. It does not itself recognise sufficiently that it has this problem, and because of this I see no prospect for improvement.

My answers may not suit you, but you have not said anything to change my mind. Moreover, respectfully, I don't think you are sufficiently versed in the subject to even begin to address the genuine and specific issues that I have with the state of the science. I am MUCH further along in my journey through climatology, and every talking point you LINK to, I have already worked through and resolved thoroughly for myself many years ago.

I am happy to discuss the science, in detail where necessary - from insolation and backradiation to the atmospheric CO2 cycle, from the Milankovich cycle to the NAO - but only with someone who has an open mind and who is interested in deepening their knowledge. Respectfully, this is not you.

SamH, I completely understand your position regarding science and those who defend its conclusions. This may seem unfair to you, but it seems that you do not yet have a monopoly on scientific speech, and that your position is not in the overwhelming majority.
As for your considerations about open-mindedness, they seem taken from a Scientology dictionary (for Ron Hubbard himself "an open mind" is like a room with broken windows open to all winds, in the which nothing is fixed).

In my last message, I quoted you without addressing you. It's pretty clear that we won't agree on much. However, I appreciate that you suddenly adopt a less caricatured position and more audible comments (not all). I remind you that you to paint me red because I just relay some basic information. You don't want to get into a scientific debate with me, that's fine. This would indeed be of no use to anyone. And that wasn't my intention. I don't care if you change your mind or if you stick to your gospel lands. But what purpose do your words serve, exactly? What is useful en it ?

When you say "I find no strong scientific evidence to support the claim that visible global warming in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic, or that it can be mitigated by humanity." I agree with the end of the sentence. I don't think humanity is capable of mitigating the effects of global warming. Particularly because scientific recommendations are not heeded and the climate alibi essentially serves to create new markets, of which that of the electric car is emblematic of its absurdity.

But what force of mental obstruction dictates such inept remarks to you as: “…no solid scientific evidence to support the claim that visible global warming in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic”?

( I ask you this question with all due respect)

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

This is the best so far, but the strange thing about this whole report is that there are no references to studies, just a list of authors, there are numbered conclusions, but how am I supposed to find references to the studies on which these conclusions are based? ...

The references you are looking for about the impacts of global warming on the oceans and cryosphere are in the full report. (I told you I didn't copy the right link, it was just below).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf

Special reports on specific topics such as disasters and extreme events are here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

In fact, you have all the elements available on the link I gave you. You just have to search a little.

This simulation tool will allow you to better measure the impact of rising water levels on specific regions by zooming in on the map. You will see that the changes announced are not trivial. Particularly (as an example) on the coastal strip which runs from northern France to Denmark.

https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/7/8.0113/51.0643/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=coastal_dem_comparison&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2050&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=gtsr&slr_model=kopp_2014


Unfortunately I can't devote an hour a day to this forum. I'm not good at English. Writing a message in gibberish already takes me several minutes. I try to help you within the limits of my means to allow you to find answers to the simple questions you ask yourself. “Is global warming of human origin? Is it dangerous for nature or for humans? "But, I am not the assertor. The burden of proof does not fall on me. You will have to form your own opinion, like each of us. If possible, based on scientific data.

Quote from SamH :

I presume this is linked because I am challenging the notion that post normal science, AKA "consensus science", can function as an alternative to the scientific method. Post normal science is NOT an alternative, but this link attempts to justify it...
... Post normalism ("consensus science") is the proverbial trojan horse that undermines science and the scientific method.

This is why the link on the climate consensus is interesting in that it categorically denies the far-fetched theory according to which it is the result of a post-normalist degeneration of science. The topic on the link traces the history of the construction of this consensus. This history demonstrates that the scientific consensus is not an anti-scientific dogma as the conspiracy theorists claim. This built over time, as evidence of global warming and its anthropogenic origins accumulated. These proofs are sufficient today, due to their complementarities and their concordances, from the point of view of scientific rationality. Ultimately, you will have to make a choice. As Scawen sums it up quite well. But a reasoned, documented and… reasonable choice.

You recognize that the links on basic concepts are annoying. I am delighted.

In my defence, I didn't paste it specifically for you (refer to the last edit of my post, prior to your response). Our discussions and the data we share can become complex to interpret for newbies (if by chance others read our comments). A little rationalism, even pure rationality, cannot hurt in this debate.

Could you please tell me again your 3 scientific hypotheses on global warming? I don't have time to reread the whole thing and I don't remember reading anything like this.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

I don't want to believe anyone.

If you don't want to believe, you must understand. This is the only way to escape beliefs.

Whatever their etymologies in the language that has shaped your mind, the terms knowledge and "savoir" will be overused. The English language for example (as far as I know ) distinguishes them quite poorly.

To understand you will need enough references. As such those provided by SamH are as important as the conclusions of science. Because this information will tell you more about the origin and nature of the ideological opposition to the thesis of global warming, than about its supposed scientific bases.
To sort it out, you'll also need a scientific method. I suggest this one. (it's not mine, but it should make SamH scream ) It has proven itself since antiquity. This method has the advantage of identifying the issues of a problem more quickly and gaining quicker access to its overall understanding (if not resolving it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Like all methods, it is as effective in leading to error as to the "truth". But if scientific truth is a chimera. Science remains the most effective tool for understanding the world in which we live, depending on the state of our knowledge at a specific time. At the precise moment, the scientific balance is tipping towards the warming thesis. Certainly.

Don't forget the link from my previous message.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Thu 12 Oct 2023, 08:57. Reason : small detail + poor wording

Quote from Scawen :

Looking at the changes D42 to D43, the only thing that jumps out at me is:

Distance to vehicle considered safe is reduced at low speed
- gaps between vehicles may be smaller when speed is below 20 m/s

The allowed gaps (from the front of AI's car to the back of the car in front) start to be reduced when speed is below 72 km/h and this could allow cars to be closer with less room for error. Do you think that could be the reason?

No certainty. I need to retest and verify with a Replay. But this explanation seems coherent to me because the serious problems were mainly concentrated in the slow corners.

Edit: And during sudden slowdowns.

Quote from Rob2003 :

I have to be honest, i didnt take the time to read everything above so this might be redundant:

I feel like with normal cars (tried mostly with fxr on Kyoto GP) the AI doesn't give you enough space in the corners anymore. It felt more like a demolition derby than an actual race. On the straights however it felt more natural that the AI was much closer while overtaking. Maybe it's just me, but being alongside AI in a corner is a little worse than before, at least i think so . Didn't try with Motorcycles though.

Just wanted to mention that!

As my tests are too few to be meaningful, I was waiting for someone to talk about this problem. With patch D43, I expected minor changes in races compared to patch D42 which really appealed to me

I did a few races again with the same grids, one made up of original GTRs, the other with original cars modified with slick tires (RB4 GT, FXO Turbo, XR GT Turbo) and unmodified FZ50s, I was driving an unmodified XR GT Turbo.

With Patch D43, GTRs races with 30 AI were impossible due to too many crashes at the first corner of Rockingham Historic, and numerous collisions afterwards. Whereas with the D42 patch, the races went well.
With the other grid, the races were also more chaotic with patch D43.

One of the major changes with the D42 patch is that the AI in FZ50 easily and cleanly overtook me in the right places with the power difference with my XR GT. Rear and side collisions with the AI in corners were almost non-existent. Patch D43 seemed to me to have erased all that.

I wanted to test it again before talking about it, but no time yet

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

The burden of proof on the assertor. If I myself were to pick something from a site with "thousands of scientific papers", you might say that's not what you meant. And I should have chosen something else.

But it's a good link, it's still a large number of examples instead of the one I asked for. Because it's a summarizing report of studies with the conclusions that have varying degrees of confidence and not all of which are catastrophic or clearly bad. And so it's going to take some time to look at.

I'm glad you like this link, even if in my haste I didn't paste you the right PDF link
If you want something accessible and well-researched on the general problem of global warming and the legitimate doubts it inspires, see this.
https://bonpote.com/en/did-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-reach-100/

EDIT:
I would just like to clear up a possible misunderstanding that has just occurred to me. When I said:

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

What you are asking me is complicated because the question of global warming is unique in that even the most exhaustive scientific data seems insufficient.

Scientific data are sufficient from a scientific point of view and for the scientific community, as my last link proves to you.
Scientific data seems insufficient to non-scientists. Particularly because for some time now, the internet and the media have been infested with trolls who convey false information according to which scientific consensus does not exist. Or even that the correlation between global warming and human activity is not scientifically established. This is strictly false. Look at my last link in this post.

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Wed 11 Oct 2023, 18:18. Reason : possible misunderstanding

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

The dialogue from above seems indicative. And this is exactly the problem I am talking about above. All there is is talking points, when you ask for reasoning of that points, (which should be there if you really hold these positions), then for some reason you don't get them.

But you get a site with "the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies." There are probably very good reports on what policy makers need to do. But I was just asking for just one example of what you are talking about. It's just that if these examples don't exist, then you're just repeating things that someone else told you and you didn't think it was important to check them out.

To find what you are looking for, you must explore my link. This site does not only contain recommendations for political decision-makers.

Like this for example: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/04_SROCC_TS_FINAL.pdf

But it turns out that these scientific studies have purposes...

Quote from SamH :

To describe Nic Lewis as

thoroughly bears out my point. Aside from being unadulterated nonsense, there is nothing scientific about this criticism. It's overtly socio-political, and radically so. And also a bit racist, tbh.

For the sake of clarity in this debate, could you cite Mr. Lewis' publications that are not related to climate change? or which predate his war against the warming thesis?
It is strange that a mathematician published for 10 years on this single subject, without publishing anything in his area of expertise. Mathematics also has a fairly broad scope. How do you explain this monomania?

On the alleged racism of my remark, is this a schoolyard argument “The one who says it is it himself” or are you adding the old refrains of white supremacism to your fanciful remarks ?

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Just give me one example, just one, and prove it's because of AGW and not for some other reasons. Or give me a study on the subject. Or at least something that proves what you're saying.

You will find, I hope, something to satisfy your curiosity here.

https://www.ipcc.ch/languages-2/russian/

What you are asking me is complicated because the question of global warming is unique in that even the most exhaustive scientific data seems insufficient.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

... look like a contradiction.

Just like with droughts and floods...

Hi Aleksandr,

Glad to see you on deck and that Scawen is taking part in the debate

The problem with stories is that they have their diegeses and they speak to subjectivities that are not neutral. The global warming narrative is a story. The video you are talking about is a story. SamH's nonsense are also stories. Each of us hears, tells and tells ourselves stories shaped by our own interpretative references.

When I read your Jewish story, for example, for me it does not highlight any form of contradiction. On the contrary, it reinforces very common stereotypes (which I will spare you ).

With the same analysis criteria, I see no contradictions between flooding and drought. And there isn't one. Global warming is a global disruption with multiple consequences. One of the devastating effects of this disruption is to amplify natural and known climatic phenomena exponentially (and often unpredictably), to the point of catastrophe. This is a proven scientific fact and not an anticipation.

I agree with you. The apocalyptic catastrophism of this video does not help much in understanding what global warming is. By showing us all-too-familiar images of places in the world historically exposed to major climatic phenomena, this video blinds us to other very concrete consequences of global warming (economic, sociological, philosophical and political). This spectacular video reinforces a Darwinist vision which appeals to fervent defenders of natural selection. In their analysis software, global warming would be a normal consequence of evolution, in that it echoes dominant neocapitalist doctrines. Only the strongest will survive, on Earth or on Mars. This is where the main resistance to scientific arguments on global warming actually lies. It is this fundamentally racist ideology that underlies and fuels the conspiratorial and obscurantist mythologies of climate skeptics, and their denial of reality.

There is no neutral interpretation of the reality. Science is also an interpretation of reality, in perpetual evolution, which has its biases and flaws. The only “comfortable” way to live with global warming and its effects is to deny its reality for as long as possible. Any other form of positioning involves us in reality, at various levels.

The first level of involvement in reality (the most basic) does not consist of “sorting” the true from the false, and drowning in complexities that are beyond us. You must proceed methodically, first identifying and eliminating spurious data. It's a shared responsibility and a job, like sorting your trash cans. We only keep what is useful. In this regard, SamH's pseudo-theological gibberish is of no use to us. Its purpose is to cause confusion. Let us also avoid this pitfall.

SamH is right when he says that science is in perpetual questioning, this is its very functioning. Where SamH is wrong is that this does not prevent science from being objective. It is not because science is fallible that it is necessarily wrong about global warming. Here, scientific doubt must benefit general awareness rather than pernicious obscurantism. It is unproductive to doubt this or that argument, to give good and bad points to scientists, or to seek proof that requires levels of understanding beyond our reach. This Meta-analysis work has already been done as scientifically as possible. The results demonstrate a global phenomenon that we need to understand, before accuse the entire scientific community.

Whatever their methodological shortcomings, the IPCC reports give us snapshots of the scientific study of climate. These reports based on thousands of studies attest to an evolution consistent with the general theory of global warming. There is no intellectual facility, nor any critical blindness, in accepting the most plausible scientific explanation.

Rather than speculating on the corruption of the scientific world and its errors, the solutions recommended to combat climate change (and the interests threatened) are sufficient, in my opinion, to explain an ideological resistance which passes itself off as scientific.

In order for this topic to be useful, I invite those who have not yet done so to consult SamH's links. Honestly, it's worth it, I'm still laughing about it.

The last link is an article intended to inform us about the religious cult of climate apocalypse, of which the Extinction Rebellion movement is said to be spearheading. It is a collection of nonsense of rare density, at all levels (informative, analytical, historical, theological, etc.).
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/26/the-cult-of-the-climate-apocalypse/

It is interesting to decipher the anti-scientific methodology of this type of literature to highlight the alchemy of its peddled mythologies. To this end, we must compare this article with what is most opposed to it and which deals with the same subject.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion

I would like to point out in the preamble that I am neither a member nor a fan of Extinction Rebellion and that Wikipedia is not my preferred point of reference either. This comparison is significant because it confronts one of the obscure sources of the Climate sceptics obscurantist nebula, with the transparent and open collaborative work of contemporary information systems. We are therefore faced here with the same type of ideological opposition which separates climate-sceptical conspiracy theory from the informative work of the IPCC.

Quick methodological decryption:

The Spike-online article relies entirely on religious bigotry and fanatical Extinction Rebellion. The author of this science fiction article uses this pretext to lead us through semi-scientific rantings on the religious apocalypse and its historical foundations (with monumental errors and edifying misinterpretations).
However, if we look at the reality of the facts, that is to say what Extinction Rebellion really is, its functioning, its members, its actions, its demands etc. we see that the article is based on only two things: an alarmist caricature of the romantic theatricality of the immature movement that is Extinction Rebellion and... Jutta Gerta Armgard Ditfurth's opinion on it.

We therefore have on the one hand the reality of a global protest movement very popular among young generations with its thousands of members around the world. And on the other side, the opinion of a single person which prevails and is sufficient to disqualify him.

Climate skeptic conspiracy works the same way everywhere, I invite you to check it for yourself.

SamH's other link is the video of a conference given by an obscure semi-conjurer mathematician converted to business, in front of around twenty heads with white hair, exclusively male, with very light skin tones.

Sometimes things only appear to be what they are. And the most likely hypothesis is also (unfortunately) the most probable.

Thanks SamH.

Quote from SamH :

I base it on your disregard for the tenets of scientific enquiry, embrace of anti-scientific methodologies and unquestioning acceptance of the dogma. I didn't convince myself of your beliefs, you convinced me.


Again, you over-egg the pudding and wildly overstate your case. Aside from the fact you are 100% depending on anecdote rather than material science here, things are just not as you describe.


Well, no, not actually. It makes you either a pessimist or a religious catastrophism devotee. The default position that you have internalised, and which you fervently defend, is apocalyptic. Regardless of your incredulity, there is an abundance of evidence that the field of science has been undermined and compromised by politics, via post-normal science. I have even provided examples of this. Do you agree with the science when it states that a child's sex is assigned at birth?

I am not the one attempting to distort reality here. There is an abundance of science to support my assertions, both promoting and questioning the purported, certain, "settled science" narrative that you are pushing. I don't need to prove that the world is/is not warming, nor that humans are a/the cause. I only have to demonstrate that the science is not settled and the future is not so certain (or so certainly doomed) as I have shown you inaccurately assert.

I could link tens of papers on sea levels, glacial retreat (Himalayan)/advancement (Pacific NW), CO2 fertilisation or any number of subsets of climate study - god knows there's a lot - but to what end? You wouldn't read them! (and if I'm taking the time to link them, there will be a test after!) You are comfortable in your belief in the impending doom and we cannot even agree on the importance of scientific integrity. When I say that you are in a cult, this is why. This is where we part company on this subject.

@Aleksandr_124rus, I hope this has provided further context and info!

Sorry, I don't have time to dismantle all the enormities of your post one by one. You have an extraordinary ability to tell yourself crazy stories. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing. Your only dialectical method consists of systematic denigration, without any form of relevant demonstration, nor argumentation of any scientific validity. Denigration of the scientific world as a whole; denigration of people who question themselves about the climate threat, whom you consider to be yes-men.
And you leave the stage, satisfied with your dialectical wanderings and the sidereal emptiness of your contribution. Here, you have just confirmed to everyone who can read that the climate-skeptical posture has no meaning and no arguments.

Thanks SamH. This at least will perhaps be useful to some .

Samh, you decided to consider me as a believer, then as a religious extremist (a tasty joke for me who has a fairly radical atheism ) just because the scientific evidence of global warming seemed sufficient to me...

The reality of warming, which everyone can see for themselves, does not satisfy me. Everyone at their own level can already observe the consequences of global warming without the support of science.
These consequences are now globalized. Unlike previous climatic epiphenomena.

Yes, I see the future rather bleak. This makes me a realist and not a pessimist. I don't think that the entire scientific world is blinded by the squirrels of post-normal science. Because it's not rational. You prefer to lock yourself in denial, it's your choice and your freedom. For my part, I prefer to retain all my critical faculties .

EDIT: Sorry I forgot.
So, apart from distorting reality to try to discredit people with out-of-context nonsense, still nothing scientific to provide us?

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Mon 9 Oct 2023, 13:36.

Quote from SamH :

Both cannot be true etc.

As I mentioned in the introduction to the post you cite, I do not state my personal beliefs in any way. The fact that The human origin of global warming has been an official consensus for at least 15 years, are not my words but those of Hélène Guillemot, historian of science. A discipline that you (also) seem to master better than the most eminent specialists and the ordinary gullible mortals that we are .

The resistance to which I alluded in my last post is that of non-scientists (in this case self-taught surgeons who kill, cripple or disfigure people). No connection therefore with the nature and context of my remarks. Patchwork-style cutting has its limits and does not constitute a very valid scientific approach. I am not surprised that these kinds of very personal methods distance you from scientific evidence . Certain similarities with another exchange I had recently are quite disturbing here...

I note that you appear to have a limited understanding of the concepts you are referring to. Reporting scientific knowledge and conclusions on a specific subject is neither sophistry nor belief. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it was you who approached me as a believer. You remain on this line, which seems to be your one and only argument. However, scientific knowledge differs from belief in that it is based on verified and attested facts, not on marginal speculations of media gurus who express themselves outside their area of expertise.

I don't want to be unpleasant to you by pointing out all the syllogisms that punctuate your speech. If you have something scientifically valid to share with us, please do so. This will move the debate forward. We are here for that at the request of Aleksandr_124rus.

Incidentally, please tell me where I am promoting an ideology of death ?

I will have a look at your link (Contrary to appearances, I am working), but the connection with our exchange and its context seems quite weak to me here.

EDIT: (I hadn't seen the link to your video yet)

Last edited by Avraham Vandezwin, Mon 9 Oct 2023, 11:16. Reason : bad wording

Quote from SamH :

Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood!

You think Crichton is a scientific reference? Crichton is a meta-analyst, in this context. I'd have thought you would be able to figure that out.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything.

Crichton's fanciful remarks about scientific consensus were contrary to the very principles of meta-analysis. Conceptually, his words are the pure negation of this. (The IPCC, for example, does a meta-analysis).

Crichton's only connection to (real) science was medicine. Imagine what scientific medicine would look like without medical consensus? (on hygiene standards, different medical protocols, training of doctors, administrative management of patients, hospitals, etc.)
Historically, Western surgeons ceased to be butchers from the moment Pasteur's discoveries gained consensus. Modern medical science was born from this consensus.

Of course, there is always resistance. Geniuses, heroes, non-conformist personalities who free themselves from consensual medical realities to chart their own path as autodidacts. We call them charlatans. When they take a scalpel, they find themselves in court after having caused more or less victims.

On the other hand, the nurse who takes your temperature is not a doctor. It does not rely on medical consensus to read the temperature given by the thermometer. Regardless of which hole she inserted it into, the nurse doesn't have to be a great scientist to know that the thermometer is not the cause of the patient's temperature.

If we approach the problem through the dog metaphor, there is no evidence that wagging a dog's tail doesn't make it happy. You can verify this empirically (preferably with dogs who know you). It will depend on the dog, its age, its desire to play or its need for someone to be interested in it. But in the case that concerns us, the dog's tail moves in synchronization with the already well-cooked sausage, which moves in front of its nose. I am not a climate expert or dog expert. But I can assure you that wagging a dog's tail will never make a sausage appear or disappear.

The belief that warming produces CO2 is triple comfortable. It allows us to not question anything in human evolution, to accept destiny while adopting a rebellious posture. But this posture is hollow.

Sometimes you have to go back to the fundamentals of science and basic logic. To the speculations of the followers of the climate sceptic sect, I prefer Ockham's razor's edge. Scientific discoveries and hypotheses are enough for me .

Quote from Racon :

This is how I feel. I appreciate that I'm not in a position to properly evaluate the complexities of climate, but the bigger picture is screaming at us from every graph we've ever seen on the subject, isn't it?

I like XKCD's temperature timeline illustration, it really puts into perspective the timescales we're talking about.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yes. I do not know why ? But it sometimes reminds me of the story of the madman who jumps from the building and repeats on each floor “so far so good”.
But thanks to SamH, I suddenly feel reassured.

Quote from SamH :

You really shouldn't copy/paste from elsewhere. We can talk to bots with formulated responses any time.


You have a religious belief, which is increasingly manifesting as a death cult. "THE END IS NIGH" etc, etc. You don't recognise it and I understand that. But it's true. It's not for me to do an intervention, and your faith is so strong that nothing I say would affect it. I have no dog in the fight, as they say.

Like so many who fall for the cult, you dogmatically repeat many lies in the climate orthodoxy, such as:-

Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years. UNTRUE

100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions. UNTRUE

There is no study of real scientific significance which contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective. UNTRUE

Global warming is proven. So is global cooling.

Its anthropogenic cause is demonstrated. MISINFORMATION There is a gulf of space between finding/recognising an anthropogenic component and attributing catastrophe to that component.

The direct consequences of global warming are observable and measurable. DEBATABLE

The nature and speed of current warming have nothing in common with previous climate variations and natural cycles. UNTRUE

I will simply quote Michael Crichton, who is one of my favourite authors and is, to science, what Orwell is to politics, who addresses the crisis in the field of scientific advancement:-



Crichton is correct, and science is in a terrible state today because the tenets of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Method, have been abandoned for abysmally low standards that permit such things as climate catastrophism and the currently prevailing scientific claims that there is no such thing as biological sex, or is nothing but a social construct.

For your information, I was referring to the video posted by rane_nbg in the post just above mine. Which reported a warming of 1.1° in 2021.

Thank you, I understand your positions better now that I know your scientific references.

You know SamH, it's not me that you have to convince of the relevance of your analyses, it's the entire scientific world.

Quote from SamH :

I can help with that!

Cults be cult-like.

Nothing can help. But hope keeps us alive.
Are the 43 million children displaced by global warming between 2016 and 2021 also under the influence of a sect? What is the name of this sect weirdness that you're alone in?

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/weather-related-disasters-led-431-million-displacements-children-over-six-years