Follow

Rational climate debate challenge 

If you regularly use the word "climate emergency" or "climate catastrophe" unironically, I'm sure you can refute a good amount of these scientific observations, or at least submit whatever you think is more relevant data:

wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25

(Any reply with valid refutations is much appreciated! Try to stay near the top of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, please.)

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao the climate was saved because Elong Musk manged to produce 20 electric cars from his giant stonk and publicly financed capital.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao

> Here are some facts for the folks that think that the climate is a real danger to humanity.

Posting this terrible dismissive article under the label "rational" is rizible at best.

PS. I've never used "climate emergency" or "climate catastrophe" in a real discussion, but dismissing people pointing out man made climate change because they're using loaded terms is presumptuous and patronizing.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@mariusor Congrats to being close to the bottom of the hierarchy of disagreement! I asked to challenge the observations. Your personal opinions on writing style are both irrelevant and unconvincing to someone considering the content. You are saying "dismissive", but the post almost entirely consists of countering common narratives with relevant data. If you disgree, then counter that with *more* relevant data or at least arguments addressing the submitted data.

re: Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao @mariusor

no relevant data there. You cherry pick on time interval.

below the right time interval.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
FTR: without setting uMatrix exceptions, all graphs don't load ...

"Loss of polar ice"
- article: 'not happening?'
- imbie.org/about-the-project/se (that site provides the 'data' for his graph) paints an entirely different picture

But generally, not providing links to *ANY* of his 'random' graphs is a big red flag.

You want better data, but the article doesn't provide data, just some pictures (to steer a narrative?).

Rational climate debate challenge 

@FreePietje It does not say it doesn't happen at all. It puts it into perspective.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
You can easily frame the perspective/narrative, by leaving out the context. #ContextMatters

Providing links (to the data) allow people to:
1) verify it
2) put it in context
The article does neither.

It's a safe bet to assume 'normal' people won't verify it (as they're too lazy), but one can't fault the article for that. An author *could* use that to construct a narrative though.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
Then there's also the correlation vs causation debate.

"When Al Gore was born, there were 7000 polar bears. Now there are 30000"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_M
A (US) law protecting among others polar bears against commercial hunting.
So more polar bears now doesn't have to implicate no climate 'emergency'.
(FTR: the worry is more about its (potential) habitat disappearing)

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
Last one.
(bc it's also used in another context ;))

"This increase in wealth has been driven and fueled by one thing … energy, mostly in the form of fossil fuels."
One can debate whether that is true, but lets assume it is true.

"fueled by one thing … energy"
So we can have that positive effect *without* fossil fuels, but using clean/green energy instead?
Awesome, let's go for that!

Rational climate debate challenge 

@FreePietje Yes, we can. But "green" energy also doesn't exist without coal, or oil derivatives. And batteries. A lot of batteries. I'm sure we'll get there. Fusion eventually.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@FreePietje I think the polar bears point is a jab at the wildly influential photo of a skinny polar bear on a shred of ice drifting in the sea. Which fueled the common narrative that they're dying out still and that the climate is to blame. (That photo was taken in spring IIRC, making its misuse even more icky.)

Rational climate debate challenge 

@FreePietje Yes, that's why I'm asking for data refuting the article's choices/claims. Genuinely interested in rational arguments for the emergency.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
My initial point is/was:
The author of that article is making baseless claims.
Then why do I have to provide (better) data to refute them?

I'm all for rational arguments in a debate.
But the article in OP doesn't fulfill that requirement.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@FreePietje The claims are not baseless. It's a summary list of many past posts that contain links and references. And many of the charts also contain refs.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
I think it's the author's responsibility to provide links to the data. Otherwise, I consider it baseless. A non-clickable URL printed on a graph is not a ref imo.

But, I've gone the extra mile.

1) imbie.org as that's easily type-able. Wrong conclusion.

2) climexp.knmi.nl/select.cgi?id= (I'm from .nl)
Not seeing a graph. Only a form to collect data.

3) Wildfires links to phzoe.com/2021/02/17/trend-in- with a script :)
neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php gives a 404 though.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao
'phzoe.com' article:
"Why are they obsessed with the length of the fire season? Why can’t they just answer the simple question: Is there more or less fire?"

Author doesn't say why that metric is better.
Wildfire in Australia last year or year before may have caused 1bln species to have died. Does that count as 1?

There are many subtleties and one can pick data that suits a narrative.
Yes, that works both ways.

Fin. Already spend too much time on this.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@kekcoin @raucao
I was indeed thinking about exactly that. I didn't know there was (already) an 'official law' for it.
Thanks :)

Ha! That WP article links to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens

"the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it."

(ref: my 'baseless')

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao the data is inconsistently picked, across various geographies, time scales and measures to weave a specfic narrative. they talk specifically about wet places getting wetter, and dry places getting drier, but no reason to believe that climate change must happen that way. they talk about total ice mass, as though the increase in rate of change is insignificant.
1/

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao increased food output, but no measure of costs associated per food produced, or amount of arable land.
localized 2 degree temperature rise is not the same as global
counts number of fires rather than their intensity, or damage measured in gdp
attributing causation between population living in poverty to amount of energy generated by oil is just plain lazy...
quite a few of theimages are unsourced
2/

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao but finally, this boxing of the anthropocene as a climate emergency and refuting the notion that it is a surprise, seems unfair. by their own definition it is not one, but that does not mean it isnt a problem. i personally dont use the word emergency

Rational climate debate challenge 

@aynish Yes, agree. And this is specifically about the emergency claims. And also about rational handling of the changes in general. (I've seen first-hand the effects of lack of household or industrial energy in many places around the globe.)

Rational climate debate challenge 

@aynish IIRC the amount of time we spend on average working in order to eat has dropped from more than half of our time to 1% or so since the advent of oil and thus farming machines. Wouldn't have to be oil now, but electric tractors need batteries and energy, too.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao yes, i can grant you that. but that isnt a reflection on possible scenarios of a changing climate so much as a reflection on industrialization and its effectiveness in improving efficiency

Rational climate debate challenge 

@aynish ... Which we have to use to our advantage with an inevitably variable climate, no?

Rational climate debate challenge 

@aynish Dry places getting too dry and wet places too wet is what could lead to an emergency. The author is not claiming that the climate doesn't change. It challenges the notion that it changed in dramatic enough ways to constitute danger.

Rational climate debate challenge 

@raucao dry places getting wet and wet places getting dry are generally the leading cause of flood and draughts respectively. this too would be a problem

Rational climate debate challenge 

@aynish Yes, see the respective charts for that. (Yes, selective for regions, which is why I'm interested in data proving that it's not a localized problem in some areas.) Generally, Earth is considerably greener now than it was 20 years ago, according to NASA, which should be good for drought trends on average, right?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
kosmos.social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!