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.
With respect, you keep making reference to "an official consensus" - which any scientist committed to the scientific method will tell you is anti-scientific. It derives from what has become known as "Post-Normal Science" (I think I've mentioned this earlier in the thread), which abandons the scientific method. By the methodology of post normal science, it is argued unequivocally that God is real and is punishing us, simply because it is the consensus of those who profess greatest knowledge on the subject (eg. priests, pastors, bishops etc.)
I prefer to remain committed to the scientific method instead, thanks!
Perhaps you should read more closely my first post on this subject, if you can do so through a lens which is not wedded to your religious belief. You will find that I am largely agnostic on the subject. I'm a pragmatic fallibilist, in fact.
To be clear, the cult of climate catastrophism is a death cult. You may not be so extreme in your expression as some, but you do say things like:-
"The world of tomorrow has absolutely no chance of resembling a pretty little green and resilient greenhouse. And nothing is being done to slow the phenomenon."
This is a pretty doom-laden and gloomy outlook. My point is that, regardless of your belief, there is no scientific basis for this claim at all. Regardless of your belief, there is huge uncertainty regarding the level of warming we can expect, regardless of what you believe, there is more uncertainty again on the proportion of anthropogenic influence and despite your certain belief, there is absolutely no evidence of a looming world-ending catastrophe.
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?
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 .
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.
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.
Interesting discussion. I can't say that I see many arguments and proofs of your positions in it. But at least there are no insults but there are some appeals to personality that I hope we can avoid in future.
The problem is that few people want to respond to the arguments of the parties, why if you can just put forward your theses, but not respond to the theses of the interlocutor.
I tried to wait a moment so as not to get into a fierce debate. My point is that I don't support either side, I only support a high level of discussion, with good arguments and without getting personal.
It's a little frustrating when you ask for an argumentation about what could happen to us, you get a scary video without argumentation at the very beginning that says that when it gets to 3 degrees there will be catastrophic changes. What are these claims about 3 degrees based on? And why not 2? Or not 4? Why 3? Just a pretty number? But the funny thing is that by catastrophic change they mean to be floods and droughts, in the same sentence. Like you either take off your cross or put on your pants.
It's perfectly explained in some sort of dad-joke that we have on this subject, but I'm not sure everyone here will understand that. But why not give it a try?
Rabinovich decided to go to a Russian public bathhouse, and so that no one would realise that he was a Jew, he put a cross around his neck.
Rabinovich undressed, went into the steam room, sat on a bench and steamed.
One man stares intently at the cross, then below Rabinovich's waist After about 10 minutes, the man quietly whispered:
- Rabinovich, you either take off your cross or put on your pants...
But because of some customs, it will not be understood, for example, by people in the United States and in Christian countries where circumcision is customary. But it just happens to us that orthodox Christianity and circumcision look like a contradiction.
Just like with droughts and floods, you at least choose one or at least explain where there will be floods and where there will be droughts and why exactly there. Otherwise your statements look meaningless. Besides, I was replying about floods and droughts to this when I wrote my first comment in this thread. So maybe it would be better to reply to my first comment right away?
This is a convenient position in which one can simply accept a priori that all studies that alternatively analyse GW or criticise AGW simply do not have contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective.
it's really hard to argue that AGW is mainstream in the scientific community. But it is hard to see why something that based on the correlations of graphs has developed for the scientific mainstream.
The scientific method is built on doubt and scepticism, on verifiability and falsifiability. And AGW has a hard time with all of that. What AGW has is correlations. But scientists should also be aware that there are spurious correlations. Humans tend to see correlations according to availability heuristics.
But I'm not saying that AGW is built on false correlations, I'm just admitting the possibility according to scientific scepticism.
But when I talk about
I'm not based on nothing.
For example, I'm talking about a letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”
So there is other opinions that are simply drowned out. From the outside it looks like a political game in which the academic community is involved. Similar things for example are happening in another field of science, where new fields like queer studies, gender studies or LGBTQ+ studies are emerging. I think a lot of people realise that these studies are emerging in relation to a specific political agenda. So why can't similar things happen in the GW field?
Although there are objective economic factors for increasing these studies there. Many people just need a degree from a university, and it is not particularly important what kind of degree, but preferably from a prestigious university. But it so happens that not all people are smart. Where can they go? Physics? Biology? Maths? No way, it's not even easy to get into. What do you need for gender studies? Get a Pencil and go in. I'm not denying that these factors can affect GW studies.
This doesn't just apply to students either. Imagine yourself in this place, on one side of the scale, fame, money and networking with colleagues from all over the world, on the other oppression, poverty and neglect. Which would you choose? If you have a hot topic where you can just get grants and sponsorship from the green community to do cetation and republish old work, why not just do it?
But like I said in the beginning I don't want to argue the topic, just because the bias of the academic community doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
BTW I hope that I will not be attacked again for giving links to my words. let's just have a reasonable discussion.
I don't think it's productive to assume everyone who thinks AGW is real is a cultist or has religious beliefs. People tend to believe rather than know, it's inherent in human nature.
And any suggestion of "THE END IS NIGH" counts? For example, who believes there will be catastrophic consequences from a nuclear war, or the fall of a giant asteroid? Are they religious believers, too?
Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it is. At least by the rule of identity. Still, simply labelling closes the topic for discussion and does not require analysis of interlocutor arguments.
But man of religion will defend his faith to the end without questioning it. And yet you continued the dialogue despite the fact that you consider your interlocutor to be a believing cultist, or is that not quite true? Or, why did you continue the dialogue?
It is baffling that the conspiracy theorists are so intent on supporting the burning of fossil fuels and have no interest in reducing the pollution that is clearly evident.
It is sad, that people with environmental concerns have been pointing out the damage for decades, and now that governments are finally being forced to reluctantly pay a little attention and have begin to make a few small changes, these right wingers have emerged to try to discredit the science with all sorts of bogus arguments.
There is no need for "doom and gloom" except to recognise the consequences will be very bad if we don't get this sorted. As large parts of the earth become very hard to live in, there will be even more wars and more people will be forced to leave the counties they grew up in.
The best thing would be if all countries worked together to make serious efforts to sort this problem out, instead of all this bickering and competing.
You may call us 'naive' to imagine that different countries could work together to solve a serious problem, but we fully recognise how unlikely that seems. However, working towards a better world is physically possible and would bring noticeable benefits within our own lifetimes. So it's worth working for.
Scawen, the big problem with "all countries working together", is deciding on who needs to cut on what. Poor countries can't cut CO2 emissions as this is mostly by farming and transport of goods which will have a direct impact on their developement. On the other hand, rich countries don't want to give up their comodities. And the cruel fact is that poor countries where it is already quite hot and dry will be affected first by the effects of increasing Earths avg temperatures. At the moment, governments are in the stage where they try to pass the blame to everyone else saying you polute the most, you start cutting first. Others say, no you first, you rich bastard And so on, we enter an infinite loop where very little is actually done.
My guess is that, it's gonna continue like this as long as there is no single gram of fossil fuels left in Earth's crust. It's my fear that's gonna be a point of no return, but I hope people will become globaly aware of the problem and that slowly we humanity as a whole will redefine our attitude towards Earth, which in turn will affect governments.
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.
You're right, of course, it's not productive. Cathartic, perhaps. But it is not my job to protect feelings, it's my obligation to tell the truth. It is true to say that climate scientists who deviate from the accepted narrative are literally accused of heresy. They are ex-communicated and excluded. They face the most shocking vitriol from within their community. This treatment is not sourced in the principles of science, it's in the methods of dogmatic religion, emotionalism and cultism.
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.
In my defence, I did say early on that sometimes it takes me longer to learn some things I'm happy to have a scientific discussion with you, but I am comfortably back to feeling no compunction to reply/respond to anti-scientific guff from others.
The state of the science is poor. The solutions to the perceived problem are expensive and ineffective, and most vociferously supported by comfortably middle-class people who have not even thought for a moment about, much less care one iota about, people who are not wealthy enough to even own a driveway to charge an EV at home. Champagne socialists, as they are known.
Is there global warming? Yes, Based on measurements of average temperatures over the last 100 years, temperatures have risen by 1 degree.
Is global warming anthropogenic? I don't know, I need more data. It is likely, given the increased human emissions since the onset of industrialisation. But we don't have precise data on how much emissions there were before industrialisation, and what the average values of e.g. CO2 were for the planet at that time and how the average temperature varied with that.
Is global warming dangerous for humans and nature? I don't know, and I don't see any data to prove or disprove it. So all I can do is construct thought experiments as it happens in such cases and extrapolate it to the entire planet. This may be wrong, but is there any way to better understand what will happen in the future under certain scenarios?
I don't want to believe anyone. Maybe that's my problem. But I just dont like to think that way, I always tried to find as much different data as I could, on one side or the other, and come to a conclusion on my own.
But both are simply putting forward their talking points. I don't want talking points, I know the all the points. I want to see the reasoning that proves their points. And that's why I ask simple questions expecting to get a detailed answer atleast in some ways that has reasoning, but every time I get a new one talking points. And just because they repeat their theses without having an argumentation, they both look like people who just believe what others have told them, but they themselves don't understand why it's happening and what's behind their talking points.
I don't care what thesis a respected professor (even with a huge number of regalia and international awards) says, I care to know what argumentation lies under this thesis. For example, I know respected biologists professor who claim that mankind evolved from hermaphroditic amazons. Or another PhD in biology, says that members of different races of humans cannot have fertile offspring. There are other such examples. And that's what they say within their field of study, you can imagine what they say in areas where they don't understand anything.
So I don't care what authority is cited and what's his thesis, I care about the reasoning behind his thesis. I don't claim to be right in my theses and arguments, I may well be wrong, but to realise this I need to look at other arguments or get counter arguments to my arguments.
This is a good comment, in the way that there are no appeals to personality or other direct rhetorical tricks. You just express some of your worldview, with some links to mine and other comments. I could agree with a lot of things and disagree with some of them and break them down in detail with my argumentation, but then we'd be getting away from the topic at hand. And why should I do it if these are just your views, and my questions remain unaddressed in your comment.
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.
I can give you one example, the drying up of the Aral Sea. It once was the world's fourth-largest lake. I've seen how global warming activists use this example as proof of the dangers of global warming. I don't see how this proves that global warming is man-made, but what they don't like to hear mentioned is that the Soviet government built a network of canals that drew water from the rivers that replenished the Aral Sea, and Soviet government built a dam that separated the Small Aral Sea from the Large Aral Sea by the Kokaralskaya Dam, which resulted in the preservation of the Small Aral Sea but caused the drying up of the Large Aral Sea. In May 2009, the Eastern Aral Sea dried up completely.
So there can be various reasons for various natural events, including as simply dry years for farmers, and these have often been described in history, there have been such events without any anthropogenic global warming.
Yaah, I'd be happy to talk to you or to anyone who has an argumentation for their position. But for some reason it's so difficult. Your position partially coincided with what I said at the beginning just to warm up the discussion, and it kind of worked. But I don't really care whether our positions coincide or not. I care about getting arguments and seeing how strong they are.
As you know, the null hypothesis IS that climate change is natural and inevitable. That's science. I find it deeply problematic that, from the outset, the very premise of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which spawned the IPCC, asserted that there was a problem that required human intervention, and charged the IPCC with finding solutions to that presumed problem. An IPCC that didn't FIND the problem, and then solve it, would be regarded a failure. Nobody wants to fail. Most especially scientists, and most especially those scientists with a voracious appetite for "success" (and hopefully a Nobel along the way!)
I've argued that it's okay to hold strong opinions, but that it's important to hold them lightly. If someone offers a better explanation leading to a different conclusion, always be ready to let go of your older strong opinions.
I agree with this.
I agree with this too. Mostly. I think we have a good idea of CO2 concentrations in ice cores etc. Temperature, though.. nope.
What I would say is that the data that we do have does not provide correlation between temperature and CO2. We often hear that correlation does not imply causation, and it's absolutely true, but we can say the same many times more strongly about the absence of correlation.
The historical data we have is based on proxy data, not direct temperature measurements. This makes the task of collecting good data inordinately more difficult, and most importantly it introduces uncertainty. Uncertainty is a necessary component of science, but it is absolutely essential that it is recognised and included honestly, always, and most particularly in this case, when informing policy decisions. No matter how inconvenient that uncertainty is.
A scientist who conceals the inherent uncertainty in their science should not be doing science (or perhaps you might say IS NOT doing science), just as a doctor who conceals the potential risk of side effects of a medical procedure from his patient should no longer be a doctor. We in our societies depend on the presumption of informed consent and it is non-negotiable.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
EDIT:
I would just like to clear up a possible misunderstanding that has just occurred to me. When I said:
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.
As I said at the outset, my intention is to be helpful or useful. I have two recommendations. One focuses strictly on the subject of climatology, scientifically speaking:-
I think this will suit you. I've never engaged on this site personally, I've always lurked, but over time I've found it incredibly helpful in fastracking to an understanding of each climate subtopic that I've needed to get up to speed on. And since the rules require strict science and no politics, the comments section is absolutely invaluable - populated both by those with knowledge, and those seeking it.
This blog objectively and critically addresses both emerging science and also the science:policy interface. The comments are often somewhat crass (likely because of the policy element of the discussion, and all that implies) but there is good knowledge among the participants, even when they vehemently disagree.
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).
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.
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?
As I said it is a report that contains conclusions from studies with varying degrees of certainty. The conclusions themselves don't tell us much because we know them ourselves. What these conclusions are based on are temperature measurements, and measurements of various gas concentrations. It also describes how they might affect the futurethe on the oceans, islands, coastal zones, mountains, glaciers, and the atmosphere. But we can't know exactly how and in what ways this will happen in the future.
But there are some conclusions based on what's already happened.
For example here Interesting about the human emissions.
Overturning Circulation (AMOC). {1.1, 1.4, 1.8.1, Figure TS.3}
Evidence and understanding of the human causes of climate
warming, and of associated ocean and cryosphere changes,
has increased over the past 30 years of IPCC assessments (very
high confidence). Human activities are estimated to have caused
approximately 1.0ºC of global warming above pre-industrial levels
(SR15). Areas of concern in earlier IPCC reports, such as the expected
acceleration of sea level rise, are now observed (high confidence).
Evidence for expected slow-down of AMOC is emerging in sustained
observations and from long-term palaeoclimate reconstructions
(medium confidence), and may be related with anthropogenic forcing
according to model simulations, although this remains to be properly
attributed. Significant sea level rise contributions from Antarctic ice
sheet mass loss (very high confidence), which earlier reports did not
expect to manifest this century, are already being observed. {1.1, 1.4}
Ocean and cryosphere changes and risks by the end-of-century
(2081–2100) will be larger under high greenhouse gas emission
scenarios, compared with low emission scenarios (very high
confidence). Projections and assessments of future climate, ocean
and cryosphere changes in the Special Report on the Ocean and
Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) are commonly based
on coordinated climate model experiments from the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) forced with Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs) of future radiative forcing. Current
emissions continue to grow at a rate consistent with a high emission
future without effective climate change mitigation policies (referred
to as RCP8.5). The SROCC assessment contrasts this high greenhouse
gas emission future with a low greenhouse gas emission, high
mitigation future (referred to as RCP2.6) that gives a two in three
chance of limiting warming by the end of the century to less than 2oC
above pre-industrial. {Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1, Table TS.2}
Characteristics of ocean and cryosphere change include
thresholds of abrupt change, long-term changes that cannot be
avoided, and irreversibility (high confidence). Ocean warming,
acidification and deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss, and
permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on time scales
relevant to human societies and ecosystems. Long response times
of decades to millennia mean that the ocean and cryosphere are
committed to long-term change even after atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations and radiative forcing stabilise (high confidence).
Ice-melt or the thawing of permafrost involve thresholds (state
changes) that allow for abrupt, nonlinear responses to ongoing
climate warming (high confidence). These characteristics of ocean
and cryosphere change pose risks and challenges to adaptation.
It's interesting to read about the rising water levels, so even these studies show low confidence in the rise of sea water level in 2.3–5.4 m. And in medium confidence 0.61–1.10 m.
I mean, that's what I was talking about in the first post. Coastal settlements and cities may be affected. But no more than that. So where are the global catastrophic that effects on people?
Future rise in GMSL caused by thermal expansion, melting
of glaciers and ice sheets and land water storage changes, is
strongly dependent on which Representative Concentration
Pathway (RCP) emission scenario is followed. SLR at the end
of the century is projected to be faster under all scenarios,
including those compatible with achieving the long-term
temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. GMSL will
rise between 0.43 m (0.29–0.59 m, likely range; RCP2.6) and
0.84 m (0.61–1.10 m, likely range; RCP8.5) by 2100 (medium
confidence) relative to 1986–2005
Processes controlling the timing of future ice shelf loss and
the spatial extent of ice sheet instabilities could increase
Antarctica’s contribution to SLR to values higher than
the likely range on century and longer time scales (low
confidence). Evolution of the AIS beyond the end of the 21st century
is characterized by deep uncertainty as ice sheet models lack realistic
representations of some of the underlying physical processes. The
few model studies available addressing time scales of centuries to
millennia indicate multi-metre (2.3–5.4 m) rise in sea level for RCP8.5
(low confidence). There is low confidence in threshold temperatures
for ice sheet instabilities and the rates of GMSL rise they can produce.
There's also an interesting chapter on "Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risks" most of the conclusions there are with medium confidence. And it doesn't talk at all about any catastrophic problems that are already happening.
And here are the only four conclusions with high confidence:
Ocean and cryosphere changes already impact Low-Lying
Islands and Coasts (LLIC), including Small Island Developing
States (SIDS), with cascading and compounding risks.
Disproportionately higher risks are expected in the course
of the 21st century. Reinforcing the findings of the IPCC
Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC, vulnerable human
communities, especially those in coral reef environments and
polar regions, may exceed adaptation limits well before the
end of this century and even in a low greenhouse gas emission
pathway (high confidence).
Limiting the risk from the impact of extreme events and abrupt
changes leads to successful adaptation to climate change
with the presence of well-coordinated climate-affected
sectors and disaster management relevant agencies (high
confidence). Transformative governance inclusive of successful
integration of disaster risk management (DRM) and climate
change adaptation, empowerment of vulnerable groups, and
accountability of governmental decisions promotes climateresilient
development pathways (high confidence).
Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction require
capacity building and an integrated approach to ensure
trade-offs between short- and long-term gains in dealing
with the uncertainty of increasing extreme events, abrupt
changes and cascading impacts at different geographic scales
(high confidence)
Sustained long-term monitoring and improved forecasts
can be used in managing the risks of extreme El Niño and
La Niña events associated with human health, agriculture,
fisheries, coral reefs, aquaculture, wildfire, drought and flood
management (high confidence)
I.e. there are no descriptions of specific events already affected by global warming, only predictions of what might happen. And in which areas we can expect some risks. And since we're talking about the future, there are no specifics either. And in a report that consists of conclusions on climate change they insert as one of the conclusions what we should do.
Roughly speaking there is still no example of what you were talking about or point me to one.
This article is about scientific consensus on climate change. I wasn't disputing the topic of scientific consensus on climate change.
Why do I need this link?
I asked you to give me one example of "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."
When a person goes nuts over a link to Anthropomorphism, and then gives a link to Occam's Razor himself. Oookay.
On the topic of global warming I've made 3 different theses in this thread. Do you know what Occam's razor is? If yes, about what problem are you talking about using an Occam's razor?
I've written some simple philosophy articles myself. And referenced the scientific method and stuff. so thank you for the links, but I'm aware of all of yours talking points about your scientism position.
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.
I was fortunate to be able to discuss post normal science with one of its formulators, Jerome Ravetz, a few years ago. I have huge respect for him, and I think post normalism has a place in business, and also as a consideration in some government policy formulation. Post normalism is only useful, though, when there is a *known problem*.
My issue is that in climate science, post normalism is being incorrectly employed to put the cart before the horse. Instead of the traditional process of empiricism (the scientific method) - i.e. theory, hypothesis, test, evaluate etc., post normal "consensus" is being used to prematurely conclude the detection/attribution element (WG1 in the IPCC report). In truth, there are VERY FEW academics who are active in the field of detection and attribution of the anthropogenic component of global warming, and there is (as is typical in almost all science - as indeed it should be so) very little agreement, and much still to resolve, between them. However, with the application of post normalism, some confirmation bias, a bit of personality conflict/favour etc., a "consensus" can be formed. Science is dispassionate, but post normalism is anything but that. Post normalism ("consensus science") is the proverbial trojan horse that undermines science and the scientific method.
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).
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.
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.
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.
.
Incidentally, please tell me where I am promoting an ideology of death ?
I'm happy to have a scientific discussion with you, but I am comfortably back to feeling no compunction to reply/respond to anti-scientific guff from others.