Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
The shock climate change deniers give you!
The IPCC used thousands of research papers ( actually they synthesized 73,000 published works) ( ref1) to do their report this year (March, 2014). They are all 'rubbish' according to the deniers!
Hundreds of scientists worked on it . 'They are all stupid people' say the deniers.
We, the people of the third world are all facing the consequences of climate change. 'Bull shit' according to the deniers.
We are suffering. 'Move and go somewhere else. You don't deserve to be here' is their response. Laugh, ridicule, arrogance and total denial.
No, I am not joking. This is exactly what one climate change denier said on line! And he adds, " I am proud to be a denier!"
Need I say more? People can come to their own conclusions now.
This made me wonder whether are we in the 21st century or in the ancient times when people of science were attacked by everybody?
And my reply to the person:
I am not associated with any environment movement. Nor am I involved with the thought 'religiously'. I am just a concerned citizen of the world. Yes, I belong to the scientific community. But that doesn't give you a chance to club me together with the people of the movement.
Yes, I agree, some are over enthusiastic and they are responsible for the bad name the environmentalists are getting.
But I am getting the proof daily in the form of the air I breathe, the water I drink, the toxic food I eat ( yes, you can smell the chemicals with your nose on food items here), price raise because of severe drought and floods and people suffering because of these things.
So completely denying the proof before my eyes is as bad as going overboard with the movement. I cannot brush it off or laugh it off.
There is a definite change in the atmosphere around me when compared to 30 years back.
Deniers, think about this: if you cannot see the change yet in the place you live in, you cannot completely deny thousands of research papers that say change is happening. IT IS NOT ALL RUBBISH. NOT ALL SCIENTISTS - OUT OF THOUSANDS - ARE LYING.
Nature has its own checks and balances. Its resilience might make you complacent.
And skeptics say the information we have now is incomplete and therefore unreliable.
My reply to them: Yes, we understand that the models we have right now might not be correct. Just because the models are not very accurate shall we not act? We have some knowledge of what would happen if we continue like this. If we still sit and stare (watch) despite that knowledge, what is the use of having it at all? Wait for full knowledge and get doomed meanwhile?
Agreed it is difficult to get accurate predictions because of the complications involved. But that doesn't mean we can still 'wait and watch'. We can act with the information we already have. That is what sensible people do.
Science deniers think about this.
My favourite quote on this:
What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true? - Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland ( On climate science predictions)
I've spent a lot of time here knocking advocacy and advising scientific literacy instead. However, in honour of one of the most passionate advocates this planet ever had:
“Inaction will cause a man to sink into the slough of despond and vanish without a trace.”
― Farley Mowat, RIP
What I really request you is to reconsider your 'complete denial mode' . Change might be natural BUT man is definitely contributing to it too. And act before it is too late.
Am I asking for the moon? :)
References:
1. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600080-new-r...
2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/
--
According to scientists -
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. They formed a group and created a website to fight deniers (2). This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do the deniers' arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? Please visit the website to know how they do it by clicking on ref 2.
Views: 128
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on
-
74
He further says 'there is no CO2'. Poor chap doesn't know that excess CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and therefore they are turning acidic. The innocent creatures of the sea are bearing the brunt of these polluters! Yes, animals in several places are moving from their place of origins. Birds, insects, and mammals of all types are migrating en masse with the changing climate (as they have with previous major climate changes). And people are leaving islands, shorelines, and previously arable lands as those become uninhabitable. As they always have.
-
-
-
Nutrients and forest carbon
M. Fernández-Martinez et al.
A synthesis of findings from 92 forests in different climate zones reveals that nutrient availability plays a crucial role in determining forest carbon balance, primarily through its influence on respiration rates. These findings challenge the assumptions used in most global coupled carbon-cycle climate models.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
rid regions absorb an unexpectedly large amount of atmospheric carbon, according to the results of a 10-year research project in which scientists exposed the Mojave Desert to CO2 levels similar to those expected in 2050.The discovery, which appears in the journal Nature Climate Change, will give experts a better grasp on the earth’s carbon budget. The carbon budget is the amount of the element that remains in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming, as well as the quantity that winds up being stored in the land or the oceans in other carbon-containing forms, the authors explained.
“It has pointed out the importance of these arid ecosystems,” R. David Evans, a professor of biological sciences at Washington State University, said in a statement. “They are a major sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide, so as CO2 levels go up, they’ll increase their uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. They’ll help take up some of that excess CO2 going into the atmosphere. They can’t take it all up, but they’ll help.”
Arid regions, which comprise a wide band at 30 degrees north and south latitude, receive less than 10 inches of rain each year. When combined with semi-arid areas, or regions which receive less than 20 inches of rain annually, they account for roughly half of the planet’s land surface.
Forest soils hold more carbon per square foot because they have more organic matter, but because arid regions cover such a larger amount of area, they can have an outsized role in the Earth’s carbon budget, the researchers said. As such, they could drastically impact how much the Earth warms as atmospheric greenhouse gases accumulate.
During their decade of work in the Mojave Desert, Evans and his colleagues removed soil and plants down to one meter deep, and then measured the amount of carbon that was absorbed. The study takes a look at one of the mysteries surrounding global warming: How much of the increasing amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is being absorbed or released by land-based ecosystems?
The team worked at the Nevada National Security Site and marked off nine octagonal plots about 75 feet in diameter. They used PVC pipes to blow air containing current CO2 concentration levels of 30 parts-per-million (ppm) over three plots, while three received no extra air and three were exposed to concentrations of 550 ppm, which is the amount of carbon dioxide anticipated for the year 2050.
Thanks to a special chemical fingerprint that could be detected while the soil, plants and other biomass were analyzed, experts at the WSU Stable Isotope Core Laboratory found that arid lands could increase the carbon uptake enough to eventually account for 15 to 28 percent of the amount currently being absorbed by land surfaces. Overall, rising CO2 levels could increase those uptake levels to account for four to eight percent of current emissions.
While the study did not account for possible changes in precipitation levels, warming temperatures or other possible climate change-related variables, Evans said that he was “surprised at the magnitude of the carbon gain, that we were able to detect it after 10 years, because 10 years isn’t very long in the life of an ecosystem.”
The project was funded by the US Department of Energy’s Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program and the National Science Foundation’s Ecosystem Studies Program was the brainchild of scientists working at universities in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. Researchers from the University of Idaho, Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University and Colorado State University were also involved in the investigation.
-
-
-
Massive Sea Wall May Be Needed to Keep New York Dry
A new analysis suggests New York City might deal with sea level rise and flood risk by a system of small levees and raising buildings unless climate change is worse than anticipated
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-sea-wall-may-be-n...--
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11204289...
'Alarmist' green groups made 'exaggerated' claims about global warming, UN climate change scientist says
Prof Myles Allen criticises 'unhelpful' alarmism by some NGOs as UN report says science is clear that drastic action is now needed to tackle climate change
-
-
-
Denier:I stopped replying to these posts because those making them cannot accept that the current models do not and have not correctly predicted the temperature and climate conditions for the last fifteen years. When the data does not accurately predict current conditions they lie. In the most recent case they attempted to harm the careers of those who published against them. An example of a failed sea level predicted rise is dwarfed by land subsidence from ground water pumping. Some sources say the difference is ten fold.
One of the definitions of insanity is when you continue to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Instead of retooling the prediction model so it works, the Climate Change Cult continues to act like Chicken Little. (For those outside the US Chicken Little's prediction was, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."
I don't have time for nonsense. Another recent article shows that reputable scientists are demanding their names be removed from nonsense statements and failed studies.
My reply: Generalizing things too is non-scientific. Saying, all the data available is nonsense, and saying everything related to climate science is stupidity is generalizing things. it shows a completely closed mind set.
Forget Obama. He is not a scientist. If he settles something with regard to science, he is trying to gain some points as a politician. Scientists have nothing to gain by settling things in science. If the work in progress is treated as the end product and if you come to drastic conclusions based on it, you are a misguided person with regard to science. -
-
-
My reply to deniers:
Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa
And I wonder about a few things.
We say Taliban is anti-science. Because it says Polio vaccine is a Western conspiracy to sterilize people in Muslim countries so that the population stops growing in them! It attacks and kills WHO workers who administer polio vaccine. It comes up with all stupid theories to stop Polio vaccination with the result that we are still struggling TO eradicate polio in some parts of the world.
Now some political leaders in the West - especially those belonging to the Republic party - say we mush stop Taliban and its anti-science policies.
But at the same time they themselves are practicing anti- science policies.( EG: Science Abuse
Subverting scientific knowledge for short-term gain
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-abuse/?page=1
Another one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5N8f-6tnEw )
So this looks like they are doing the same things they say are disgusting!
Why is this? A big WHY?Generalizing things too is non-scientific. Saying, all the data available is nonsense, and saying everything related to climate science is stupidity is generalizing things. it shows a completely closed mind set.
Forget Obama. He is not a scientist. If he settles something with regard to science, he is trying to gain some points as a politician. Scientists have nothing to gain by settling things in science. If the work in progress is treated as the end product and if you come to drastic conclusions based on it, you are a misguided person with regard to science.
Most of the deniers are basing their arguments on generalizations with sweeping comments. It is definitely non-scientific to say all climate science is bogus and all the 97% of scientists who agree that climate cahnge is real are lying. These are lame excuses to push forward with their hidden agenda. They are repeating the same over and over again. This is not the way to win an argument.
I think this argument didn't take into account recent reports and accepting the fact of how difficult it is to predict correctly when so many factors are at play. Even IPCC toned down its report and was very cautious this year. No body is saying we are 100% correct.
We are only asking to connect things using the data available and the knowledge we have to take steps so that we don't sink further into disarray.
Who says people are not taking steps to protect people? In this part of the world they are. But climate is a global issue and when one part of the world acts, it doesn't have much impact. And people who are propagating anti-climate change arguments are making things difficult for us.
You know microbes cause diseases. Both known and unknown. When a scientist asks you take steps to protect people by maintaining good hygiene, and if you ask the scientist to first prove that certain microbes cause some diseases first and then only you will maintain hygiene, what can we say about such a person?
""An intelligent person gets creative, connect things, anticipate problems and take steps to face them. If we don't have to face them it is okay. But not preparing to face them is foolishness. Preparedness is better than unpreparedness any day"".
Last year scientists in Italy were punished for not predicting Volcano eruptions and Earthquakes (another unpredictable area) and warning people beforehand.
You are doomed if you predict and you are doomed if you don't predict. Correct data or no data scientists have to take these risks. And we take them. And get attacked in the process by people who don't understand the whole process. we take this in our stride.
But don't confuse people by saying all scientists are lying. We are not. We are only taking calculated risks. And our profession demands them. -
-
-
New national standards for teaching science in public schools have sparked backlash in several states, particularly from officials who want teachers to teach climate change as a scientific debate, rather than accepted science.
But several groups that are concerned about the future of climate science education in the U.S. are pushing back. Today, four environmental organizations released the Climate Science Students Bill of Rights, a document that the groups hope will help them rally support around the Next Generation Science Standards from companies, scientific organizations, and local activists, as well as from students, parents, and teachers. The document asserts that students have five rights when it comes to climate education, including receiving high-quality education “free from ideological or political interference,” and exploring “the causes and consequences of climate change.”
http://www.newsforage.com/2014/07/parents-blast-climate-denial-in-s... -
Badge
Birthdays
Birthdays Today
Birthdays Tomorrow
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
