Colorful Garden Chat Picture Thread

Scientists have been arguing about this for years, but you apparently know the facts.

No, they haven’t, and yes, I actually do in this case.

The controversy is blown up beyond recognition because the very few dissenters cloaked in scientific garb find incredible resonance on the internet.
In truth, the theory is about 150 years old, the first models are 60 years old, and satellite measurements have existed for almost 45 years. All of this is in perfect agreement: The deductively derived theory has led to models that made quantifiable statements. These statements were later verified and confirmed by measurements. By now, millions of times.
(The theory referred to is the one about the effect of infrared-active gases on the Earth’s surface energy emission to space)

Why it should not be logically coherent is beyond me.

Because the natural variability of the climate does not mean that there cannot be human-made variability. That there have always been forest fires does not mean that a carelessly discarded cigarette butt in a dry forest would generally be ineffective.

If one does not exclude the other, the relevant question must be whether both can be distinguished.
They can. Result: The measured warming since the late 1940s is man-made. Determined by the above-mentioned methodology.

Just because there is little rain this year doesn’t mean we simply talk about heat and summer but immediately about climate change.

For a particular reason: outstanding years like this one (above-average warm and dry) are not randomly distributed over time but cluster in recent times. Statistically, that should not happen if there were no general warming.

In the past, the Tagesschau made the maps with temperatures of 26 degrees green, today it is deep red there.

That is one of those myths with which certain associations and parties fish for support. It’s nonsense, but appeals to the confirmation bias in all of us: People are much more likely to find plausible what aligns with their own ideas about something. In doing so, one loses sight of the fact that we all go through life with a few mistaken ideas.

The color code of the temperature maps is exactly as I always remember it (well, I’m only in my mid-30s). It is different in winter than in summer, and anyway, a temperature map is something different from a weather map. And just like that, the story dissolves.

You are making an impermissible conclusion. Kind of like if someone said all children are born from women, therefore all women give birth to children. Or if in the past a person accidentally died from a bullet, that means all deaths by firearms are accidents. The researchers do not argue whether climate change exists or is man-made, they only argue whether it can still be stopped and if so, how. The so-called scientists who still hold up the opposition(!) sign are usually not experts, outsiders, and/or are not taken seriously or engaged with in the scientific discourse (peer review). No, with 80% emissions we are included, we are in sixth place. But it is true that other countries emit significantly more. How one can conclude from that that nothing needs to be done because of it is beyond me. It is not just this year. It is really visible how in the last 150 years (since the industrial revolution) climate extremes have become more frequent, the temperature increase has proceeded at an unprecedented pace, and the origin of CO2 (namely not from volcanoes or such) can also be proven. The thing with the Tagesschau weather map is wrong. Corresponding memes were exposed as fake or manipulative. Different topics are shown there: daily temperature versus three-day forecast. I recommend a well-known fact-checking site for reading on this. Unfortunately, linking is not allowed here, but if you inform yourself a bit away from social media and the denier bubble, you will see that quite quickly

Ok, I would have liked to discuss this on equal footing here, but with the quote of the fact-checkers as the source of your theses, I’m unfortunately out. They checked and said just three days before the lockdown that it would not come and that it was fake news. Just to name one thing. And by the way, Tagesschau admitted they changed the colors, supposedly just a standardization or a new PowerPoint template. It is the same as with C.: all those who said infection cannot be prevented despite vaccination were defamed. Still, they were right. And now we are running the whole show again with another topic and again no one checks it. Excluding critics and not taking them seriously unfortunately has a system. Every factual exchange of arguments is thus unfortunately prevented. As I said, I am all for environmental protection, but it must not become a dogma. And it should also be based on science and thus be clear beforehand whether a measure brings any benefit or not.

Every factual exchange of arguments is unfortunately prevented this way.

Hm… I think I answered factually AND moreover gave real arguments.

You had claimed something before without explaining it further.

If you want to justify it, I would like to hear these arguments, I have no problem with an exchange. What I reject is:

Excluding critics and not taking them seriously unfortunately has a system.

I exclude no one. I only point out that physics is a "hard" science that can falsify opinions accordingly. That does not make opinions forbidden, but it makes them right or wrong. The fundamental questions of global warming (what causes it, where the CO2 comes from) are finally settled. At this point there are no professionally valid opposing opinions.

Being able to measure everything so clearly and verifiably or to derive it from the known laws of nature fundamentally distinguishes this question, by the way, from epidemiology. Therefore, it is NOT comparable to C.

I think we could discuss here for hours, the question is whether anyone feels like it (-:

There was enough data for C. However, not in or for Germany and not in the public broadcasting media.

I'm not saying that you exclude anyone, it's more about the general mechanism that can be applied to all current topics. From C to climate to war. There is only one correct opinion and anyone who tries to discuss objectively in a different direction is, as your previous speaker wrote, excluded and ridiculed and thus all theses on this page no longer count because all sources are labeled as false, after all they come from strange experts who suddenly are no longer experts. I find this unfortunate because it prevents any discussion. There is only right and wrong and nothing in between.

Well, but maybe we should make a separate climate change thread, because this is supposed to be about gardening, right

I’m not saying that you exclude anyone; it’s more about the general mechanism that can be applied to all current topics. From C to climate to war. There is only one correct opinion, and anyone who tries to discuss objectively in a different direction is, as your predecessor wrote, excluded and ridiculed, and thus all theses on this site no longer count, because all sources are labeled as false; after all, they come from strange experts who suddenly are no longer experts. I find that unfortunate because it prevents any discussion. There is only right and wrong and nothing in between.

There are no alternative facts. All data say the same about climate change. And no, just because there are a few fools who claim the opposite does not make it a scientifically founded opinion. Science is not a democracy, get used to it. Science works differently, namely with evidence. Watch the MaithinkX episode on freedom of speech. It explains this very simply.

I am more concerned with the general mechanism that can be applied to all current topics. From C to climate to war. There is only one right opinion […] There is only right and wrong and nothing in between.

That is the problem. The mechanism is simply not transferable. The mechanism of scientific knowledge acquisition is exclusive to certain fields and unsuitable for others.
It is scientifically correct to classify opinions about conducted measurements as right or wrong. That does not mean that you can do the same with all other opinions.
And with opinions about “measured facts,” there may be many, but most are to be evaluated as wrong according to a defined method.

I rather see the problem that outsiders often cannot distinguish between science, personal opinion, and activism and therefore see “THE general mechanism” everywhere.

—————

On the topic of greenery: My south-facing balcony is dying away. I am now more engaged in palliative care there. No rain for weeks. Ruhr area here.