The Problems with the Global Warming Debate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

xpowderx:

Oirish_Martin:
Seriously guy, go to the actual "paper" linked.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

First fucking line.

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Honestly.

And currently? I prefer up to date peer reviewed data, not outdated versions. As well as scientists using current models and not models that go back to the 90ies! Thanks!

Which is obviously bollocks as you just cited something claiming it was peer reviewed, when it turned out you hadn't even bothered to check your source to see if it was - and it wasn't.

You're not fooling anyone with your blatant lack of intellectual honesty here.

Seekster:

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

My preference is to support science. Science geared to support a preference probably isnt science.

It's not suited to a preference - and it is trying to deal with the problem, namely by trying to slow it, and highlighting our dependence on one harmful source of energy. I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.

You don't need to be a scientist to know that even if we all stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow and let the economy collapse the current trend of warming would not stop. We should look for more efficient and cleaner fuels for a number of reasons including environmental ones. However it makes sense to look for ways to deal with any problems that a warming climate may present us in the near future.

Which would be why I said SLOW, not STOP. And again, giving us additional time to prepare is by any stretch of the imagination dealing with the problem.

Seekster:
My preference is to support science. Science geared to support a preference probably isnt science.

Well then support it. Don't argue "Oh, there's no point in finding stuff out".

I can imagine when researchers were finding links between smoking and lung cancer, 1950s Seekster saying "Why are they spending so much time on that? Waste of effort. What they should be doing is working on how many more hospital beds and cemeteries we need to provide for."

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Oirish_Martin:

It's not suited to a preference - and it is trying to deal with the problem, namely by trying to slow it, and highlighting our dependence on one harmful source of energy. I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise.

You don't need to be a scientist to know that even if we all stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow and let the economy collapse the current trend of warming would not stop. We should look for more efficient and cleaner fuels for a number of reasons including environmental ones. However it makes sense to look for ways to deal with any problems that a warming climate may present us in the near future.

Which would be why I said SLOW, not STOP. And again, giving us additional time to prepare is by any stretch of the imagination dealing with the problem.

Not if we wreck our economies in the process.

Agema:

Seekster:
My preference is to support science. Science geared to support a preference probably isnt science.

Well then support it. Don't argue "Oh, there's no point in finding stuff out".

I can imagine when researchers were finding links between smoking and lung cancer, 1950s Seekster saying "Why are they spending so much time on that? Waste of effort. What they should be doing is working on how many more hospital beds and cemeteries we need to provide for."

Not a valid comparison. If you were to ban smoking then people dying of lung cancer would probably decrease. If you were to hypothetically stop using fossil fuels the global temperature is still going to go up, maybe at a lower rate but its still going to go up. That slower rise in temperature is simply not worth the price of wrecking the economy. I support sensible environmentalism but until they find a way to actually cool the global climate then we need to keep our heads and not scream about the end of the world like the Al Gore folks are.

Seekster:

Not if we wreck our economies in the process.

Not doing anything to address the current climate trend will certainly wreck other countries' economies, especially if they're still largely agrarian, as I mentioned on the previous page. I know the West has an habit of raising itself up on the backs of other cultures, so that alone isn't going to engender much compassion - what will change people's minds is losing their sources of incredibly cheap foodstuffs and an increase in migration from poorer countries becoming even more poverty-stricken. The economy could end up going through a tough time either way, but not doing shit in the time when you are actually more capable of doing something is just asinine.

Well, if global warming scientists wish to be taken seriously, they should probably separate their work rigorously from any recommendation on whether or not to intervene; Such is a political question.

The role of trustworthy scientists is to present data, and the best theories which can be inducted from them at the time. And then present the most efficient solutions if/when asked to by those with the democratic legitimacy to actually decide whether it's a problem, and if so whether or not any resources should be allocated to solving this problem.

I haven't followed much of the global warming debate, as it doesn't really interest me much. But from what I've seen, it's my impression that scientists have not maintained this absolute dividing line between scientific analysis ("is") and political agenda ("ought to"), and that much of the blame for the distrust in them hence falls upon themselves.

In their quest for much funding, they have lost much legitimacy.

Seekster:

Not a valid comparison. If you were to ban smoking then people dying of lung cancer would probably decrease. If you were to hypothetically stop using fossil fuels the global temperature is still going to go up, maybe at a lower rate but its still going to go up. That slower rise in temperature is simply not worth the price of wrecking the economy. I support sensible environmentalism but until they find a way to actually cool the global climate then we need to keep our heads and not scream about the end of the world like the Al Gore folks are.

Did you not read what this thread is about? It's about the science of climate change and how we approach science, not potential public policy in response to climate change.

The extent to which you've mentioned science, the explicit point of the thread, is to say something approximating to "Why are we even bothering to investigate climate change?" I'm tackling you on that. And so yes my comparison is very valid indeed.

* * *

And then, of course, you've tried to instantly digress into public policy waffle. Never mind being too clueless to notice the double standard of being sensible criticising climate alarmism, just to talk about 'wrecking the economy'... as if that's not alarmism. Never mind it being a straw man. And then the old denialist standby of bringing up Al Gore as if it matters a shit.

Oirish_Martin:

Seekster:

Not if we wreck our economies in the process.

Not doing anything to address the current climate trend will certainly wreck other countries' economies, especially if they're still largely agrarian, as I mentioned on the previous page. I know the West has an habit of raising itself up on the backs of other cultures, so that alone isn't going to engender much compassion - what will change people's minds is losing their sources of incredibly cheap foodstuffs and an increase in migration from poorer countries becoming even more poverty-stricken. The economy could end up going through a tough time either way, but not doing shit in the time when you are actually more capable of doing something is just asinine.

Thats why I say we need a measured and sensible approach. We can't lose our heads and do something rash but neither can we just sit around and do nothing which is what we are doing right now.

Agema:

Seekster:

Not a valid comparison. If you were to ban smoking then people dying of lung cancer would probably decrease. If you were to hypothetically stop using fossil fuels the global temperature is still going to go up, maybe at a lower rate but its still going to go up. That slower rise in temperature is simply not worth the price of wrecking the economy. I support sensible environmentalism but until they find a way to actually cool the global climate then we need to keep our heads and not scream about the end of the world like the Al Gore folks are.

Did you not read what this thread is about? It's about the science of climate change and how we approach science, not potential public policy in response to climate change.

The extent to which you've mentioned science, the explicit point of the thread, is to say something approximating to "Why are we even bothering to investigate climate change?" I'm tackling you on that. And so yes my comparison is very valid indeed.

* * *

And then, of course, you've tried to instantly digress into public policy waffle. Never mind being too clueless to notice the double standard of being sensible criticising climate alarmism, just to talk about 'wrecking the economy'... as if that's not alarmism. Never mind it being a straw man. And then the old denialist standby of bringing up Al Gore as if it matters a shit.

Science should tackle climate change but its more important to know what the effects of climate change will be than it is to determine how much of it is man's fault. Whether we caused it or not we need to first make sure we can deal with it.

xpowderx:
First and foremost here is a article about climatologists that reject the notion of the Global Warming Myth and consensus. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/08/01/climatologists-reject-media-claims-global-warming-consensus

The first red flag popped up for me here: "Leading climatologists spent the month of June fighting false proclamations from non-scientists claiming scientists have reached agreement that catastrophic global warming is occurring." If that's what this is about, well no shit - but I'll keep reading...

The Article:
Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."

Ah. It is exactly what I thought it was. They're not speaking out against global warming, they're speaking out against some of the ludicrous ideas that non-scientists in the global warming camp are pushing. Big difference. Then it goes on to say this:

The Article:
The controlling driver of global temperature fluctuations, according to Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, is solar ray activity. "Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate," Peiser was quoted as saying in the May 17 National Post.

...which is when it shows that this article is woefully out of date. The idea that cosmic rays seeding clouds have something to do with global temperature was a reasonable hypothesis for a while. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to the layman, but it was not completely unfounded. Unfortunately, it has since been widely refuted, mainly because there is simply no correlation between cosmic radiation and the current increase in temperatures (see about 4:10 in the video, sources are cited in the info bar). In fact, the entire article is woefully out of date. Take for example this:

The Article:
Added Peiser, "In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea."

The AASC no longer endurses this position, in fact, it seems to have rejected this idea back in 2001. I could not find the statement from the RAS, so there's no sourcing on that... But I did find at least one member who's a skeptic. But then again, the fact that the article is out of date shouldn't really surprise anyone. Here's the thing about hotly contested fields of scientific study: they tend to change at pretty damn high rates. This article is from more than 5 years ago, published in a paper whose reliability is, at best, at the level of most tabloid newspapers (I'm not even going to play the "bias" card, but that doesn't look to great either) and which does not cite its sources particularly well. MOVING ON.

So I decided to give peer reviewed sources for this instance. Since it is claimed that only media articles are being used.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

Wow, I'm genuinely impressed! For once, a skeptic posts a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Well, let's take a look at it! The article links back to this newsletter from the APS:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm

...Hang on, what's this?

The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.

Hmm. That's odd. But all right, moving forward... The article you cited links specifically to this article by "Lord" Monckton:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

...But wait, hang on, what's this, written at the very top, before the article begins?

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

...Huh. Go figure. It's almost as if they're trying to make it very clear that this isn't actually a peer-reviewed, scientific piece. Which leads me to wonder... If it's actually not normal procedure for APS newsletters to perform peer-review, why did Monckton publish it there?

You see, powder, I could've gone the easy route with this one. Monckton's "research" has been refuted many, many times by actual scientists, and there are countless blogs out there that refute him. I could have just given you this link and said to go wild. Hell, I could have given you THIS link, which is a clear takedown in essentially every claim Monckton makes by a professional science journalist who cites his sources directly.

But no, I decided to take the high road, and do what you refused to do: vet your sources. This is a repeating pattern: you post a blog, or news site, and claim it as "proof", without really digging deeper and trying to find where they get their sources. It's incredibly lazy, and really kind of a pain in the ass that I have to do that for you, because most of the time, it ends up being either outdated, dishonest, or both.

as well as some interesting views from climatologists themselves.
[snip]
These are just small examples, just using Wikpedia.

Then give me the damn source. Actually, I'll save you the trouble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Yeah, they exist. There IS dissent. There is the occasional, rare scientist who disagrees on a complex scientific issue with many, many factors. But... here's the funny thing... This is the image near the top of the page:

image

This is the caption for it: "97-98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.[2]"

And that just makes your next line hilarious:

I have yet to see this big consensus that pro global warming advocates say exists. In fact as of 2011 climatologists are divided by the issue.

Pfft. Right there in the fucking sidebar. And it's actually peer-reviewed, unlike your Monckton piece. And here's another one.

Now to weather forecasters. The most ominous source for Global Warming Advocates is right here:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

Interesting, a bunch of scientists in a tangentially related field have a dissenting opinion, but have published absolutely no peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Why you think this is relevant in the slightest is beyond me, though.

While I do believe that humans do have a impact upon the environment they live around. Which in some cases brings about dire and deadly consequences(Dust Bowl, Gobe desert erosion). This also includes biological catastrophes.As far as Global Warming is concerned. Most of it is B.S to effect the masses.

Most of what? The media's impression of it? Well no shit! I said that in the first post in the thread: the media almost always gets it wrong! But the actual science? Uh... No.

The latest Pro peer reviewed global warming outside the IPCC and Obamas government controlled agencies were in 2006.

I fail to see how this is relevant. I'm also kind of wondering how you know this... Been keeping up with the scientific literature, have we? I tried to look for the source on this claim and honestly could not find it. What I could find was this:
A paper directly referencing the science from '07. I think I already know your response (assuming you give one), and it will most likely be "But that isn't establishing that global warming exists!" Well no shit. If that's your problem, then you might as well ask why there's been no peer-reviewed article establishing the existence of evolution in the last 10 years.

Oh, and there's this one which kinda made the news for completely debunking "Climategate: http://berkeleyearth.org/

But what bugs me more is this idea that, for some reason, the fact that someone comes from the IPCC or a government agency discredits it. Why? Peer review doesn't judge on credentials. It judges based on the actual evidence available. Even if these institutions are biased, their research cannot be, or else it will be torn apart.

For the past 5 years there have been more peer reviewed papers calling Global Warming a myth than there are actual peer reviewed papers claiming otherwise.

Really? Okay, prove it. Or hell, even find me one peer-reviewed paper from a serious journal, which does that.

So my statement still stands. Global Warming is a MYTH! Even Global Warming scientists cannot even get facts straight!

Oh dear. This will be good.

The best story of the year! Gotta love it! Freezing Winters and Blizzards are caused due to "Global Warming". Desperation by these straight out liars among our science community.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9109106/Freezing-winters-ahead-due-to-melting-Arctic-Sea-ice.html One can only laugh when reading the article. Is that the lowest these Global warming supporters will go? Probably NOT!

Ah. This. K, first of all, take a look at your source. Is it a peer-reviewed journal? Is it a science blog? Or is it a tabloid newspaper, a source infamous for getting climate science wrong (more often than not on purpose) almost every single time?

...

If you answered "tabloid newspaper", congratulations! You've just explained why this argument is fucking stupid. The paper doesn't cite its sources, otherwise I'd go into it, but it's a reasonable guess to assume that the Telegraph does not speak for the vast majority of climate scientists, and that if it says something, it's almost certainly hypersensationalized to the point of irrelevance. We had exactly this kind of scare before, in IIRC '05; the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was based on a very real hypothesis, which ended up being overturned by the actual facts once the climatologists took a closer look at it. However, global warming causing localized cooling is not a new idea, nor is it one that you can simply brush off with casual disdain. It's entirely possible that something like that could happen... It's just not currently evidenced particularly well. Maybe this unnamed source that the Telegraph brings up could explain it a little better... But taking the tabloids at face value on science is retarded.

One thing is for certain! This subject will stay divided! Until we have a better understanding of nature on our planet and the universe. Global warming will still be a subject of debate!

...Ugh. This just hurts. If you can't see the bitter irony in this statement, then I really can't help you.

Now perhaps we can make a new argument! Polar Shift! I notice that is not talked about here. Even with full Empirical Evidence showing it happening. Global Warming advocates will discount such saying it is completely different. When in fact Polar Shift will directly influence and change our climate permanently!

Perhaps you can stop threadshitting. Or at least provide some damn citations. Thanks. ^_^

--

I just spent about two hours on this post.

I just spend about two hours responding to xpowderx.

What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. Me.

THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THAT THERE'S A GIGANTIC FUCKING DISCREPANCY!

xpowderx:
And currently? I prefer up to date peer reviewed data, not outdated versions. As well as scientists using current models and not models that go back to the 90ies! Thanks!

Now if you can provide a current peer review, that would be nice! This comment was not towards you Orrish, sorry, I justy have the same consensus feeling!

Go look it up your damn lazy self. You expect to be spoon-fed? No. I've done just about enough of that for you in this thread.

Stagnant:
What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. Me.

You have convictions, standards and honesty; that's what's wrong with you. You sap.

But really, thanks for all that juicey knowledge, powder will just behave as his namesake and brush it away; but it will stick with me (and other readers) and improve our understanding, and at the very least our methods in discerning reality from gobbledygook.

Cheers to you Stag.

Seekster:
Science should tackle climate change but its more important to know what the effects of climate change will be than it is to determine how much of it is man's fault. Whether we caused it or not we need to first make sure we can deal with it.

I agree. The fact of the matter is, it's happening. Our efforts to stop what is widely considered to be our "contribution" to the problem have all failed, usually pretty miserably. As such, how much of it is our fault isn't the most important thing here, even though it's not nearly as disputed as you think.

TheMatsjo:

Stagnant:
What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. Me.

You have convictions, standards and honesty; that's what's wrong with you. You sap.

Replace that first one with "WAY too much free time."

But really, thanks for all that juicey knowledge, powder will just behave as his namesake and brush it away; but it will stick with me (and other readers) and improve our understanding, and at the very least our methods in discerning reality from gobbledygook.

Cheers to you Stag.

No problem. Spreading knowledge is never a bad thing.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Science should tackle climate change but its more important to know what the effects of climate change will be than it is to determine how much of it is man's fault. Whether we caused it or not we need to first make sure we can deal with it.

I agree. The fact of the matter is, it's happening. Our efforts to stop what is widely considered to be our "contribution" to the problem have all failed, usually pretty miserably. As such, how much of it is our fault isn't the most important thing here, even though it's not nearly as disputed as you think.

If Stagnant and I can agree on something in a discussion about climate change that is fairly noteworthy.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Science should tackle climate change but its more important to know what the effects of climate change will be than it is to determine how much of it is man's fault. Whether we caused it or not we need to first make sure we can deal with it.

I agree. The fact of the matter is, it's happening. Our efforts to stop what is widely considered to be our "contribution" to the problem have all failed, usually pretty miserably. As such, how much of it is our fault isn't the most important thing here, even though it's not nearly as disputed as you think.

I disagree, I think knowing how much is our fault is what the whole debate is about. If we're trying to determine how climate change will alter our planet wouldn't it be important to know what it is we're doing to contribute to it? How are we supposed to stop or slow something when we don't even know how much of the problem is our doing and how much is supposed to happen?

I'm not a climatologist and I have no idea what kind of training or background one needs to become a climatologist. The thing is that even though a lot of people don't see this as a debate it is one.

just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. How many people believed the world was flat hundreds of years ago? However it'd be silly to point to that example and say that modern people are as ignorant.

If only there was something almost everyone accepts as fact but in truth should be questioned. Like I dunno, Second hand smoke or something?

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

almost everyone who attributes second hand smoke to heart disease or cancer are basing this on a paper done by the EPA in 1993. and even then the statistics were skewed. There is no question smoking is dangerous and terrible for you however the evidence just isn't there for second hand smoke.

Frankly I'm not on one side or the other, I just refuse to take popular opinion as fact. The ability to question things around us is what makes us human, Believing in climate change just because a lot of people believe it is silly.

I am amazed to the efforts by Global Warming supporters that keep bringing up the 2007 link. As such I will provide the current effort concerning that link. Which is here:http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Hows that for big government huh? No more argument. None needed. The 2007 peer reviewed global warming paper is completely debunked! By who? scientists of our own U.S government!

Here is the link again, in case you missed it.. DEBUNKED! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Feel free to debate that or make argument. Because that link is current. Man,the imagination and conglomeration of gobbly-goop Global Warming advocates come up with!

Lets try it again sometime!

The problem with the global warming debate isn't that it's getting mired in politics or that people misunderstand the science (although both of those may be true) - it's that it's taken as a significant problem we should all lose sleep over. I'm not talking about the fact that we may not feel its supposed effects, whatever they may be, in our lifetimes - I don't even think posterity ought to worry about this. There are far more significant issues for humanity in general to concern itself with.

Limecake:
I disagree, I think knowing how much is our fault is what the whole debate is about. If we're trying to determine how climate change will alter our planet wouldn't it be important to know what it is we're doing to contribute to it? How are we supposed to stop or slow something when we don't even know how much of the problem is our doing and how much is supposed to happen?

Part of the problem with this is simply that even though we pretty much do know right now, and have very solid models explaining our involvement, people are convinced that it's all a sham, or that every climate scientist is paid off, or that somehow the entire world is fucking wrong. And even if most of us were able to agree on our involvement, it still wouldn't make a difference to many, who would then argue "why bother trying to do anything, it'll just sink our economy" (or, better yet, as China did, "You guys did it, and now it's our turn"). The debate on whether or not it's man-made is, ethically speaking, important, but I find it hard to give a damn about the moral implications when the practical implications are banging down the door. The fact is, we can't really stop this from happening, and we need to prepare for it.

I'm not a climatologist and I have no idea what kind of training or background one needs to become a climatologist. The thing is that even though a lot of people don't see this as a debate it is one.

Well, it's kind of lopsided... On one side, you have those who see the miles upon miles of data and extremely successful computer models, almost every climatologist in the world, and a good portion of the populace. On the other, you have denial, a few fringe scientists with theories that have been debunked, and almost nothing which constitutes real evidence. It's not quite as bad as the Evolution-Creationism debate for a number of reasons, but it's getting there.

just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. How many people believed the world was flat hundreds of years ago? However it'd be silly to point to that example and say that modern people are as ignorant.

It's also worth noting that this comparison fails horribly because back in Galileo's day, the scientific method essentially did not exist.

Frankly I'm not on one side or the other, I just refuse to take popular opinion as fact. The ability to question things around us is what makes us human, Believing in climate change just because a lot of people believe it is silly.

Well yes, the popular opinion is often horribly, horribly wrong. If the science is dated or refuted, then it can be changed. But this isn't the case at the moment with AGW. There are mountains of evidence for its existence. It's not just popular, it's the best-stated case, and should be assumed to be correct, at least until contradictory evidence rolls around.

Also, there's a difference between "A lot of people believe in something" and "The most well-educated people in their field, and pretty much everyone else, hold up a theory as true based on their interpretation of the available data". When I appeal to the consensus opinion of climatologists, this is what I'm doing.

TWRule:
The problem with the global warming debate isn't that it's getting mired in politics or that people misunderstand the science (although both of those may be true) - it's that it's taken as a significant problem we should all lose sleep over. I'm not talking about the fact that we may not feel its supposed effects, whatever they may be, in our lifetimes - I don't even think posterity ought to worry about this. There are far more significant issues for humanity in general to concern itself with.

In the short term, maybe... In the long term, though, this is going to be a pretty big deal.

xpowderx:
I am amazed to the efforts by Global Warming supporters that keep bringing up the 2007 link.

"The" 2007 link? You said there was nothing in the climate science since 2006 supporting AGW. I proved you wrong.

As such I will provide the current effort concerning that link. Which is here:http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Hows that for big government huh? No more argument. None needed. The 2007 peer reviewed global warming paper is completely debunked! By who? scientists of our own U.S government!

What 2007 paper? As in, which one? What are you even talking about?

Here is the link again, in case you missed it.. DEBUNKED! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

I swear to god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a third-grader. I'd go through it myself, but I've spent enough time on your bullshit. If you're not even going to take the time to TRY to understand the science involved, then I'm not going to take the time to try to explain it to you.

Feel free to debate that or make argument. Because that link is current.

Yes, because this is clearly the year 2007! And because the senate minority is clearly the most reliable scientific group in the history of mankind! And obviously, this issue has been so clearly settled that there are no groups still doing intense research on the issue (such as, say, the CRU and BEST, to name a few).

Man,the imagination and conglomeration of gobbly-goop Global Warming advocates come up with!

Lets try it again sometime!

Reported for trolling. You're not worth debating with. Now kindly get the fuck out of my thread. Oh and, uh, thanks for addressing my points. As I predicted: in one ear, out the other.

TWRule:
The problem with the global warming debate isn't that it's getting mired in politics or that people misunderstand the science (although both of those may be true) - it's that it's taken as a significant problem we should all lose sleep over. I'm not talking about the fact that we may not feel its supposed effects, whatever they may be, in our lifetimes - I don't even think posterity ought to worry about this. There are far more significant issues for humanity in general to concern itself with.

Which issues are far more significant?

Sure there's not going to be the day after tommorow type stuff, but speaking as someone who doesn't know the science beyond a basic level, it seems like it's a good idea to do something about it, don't you think? Climate change could have pretty nasty effects on agriculture and casue more land wars in africa, although of course take what I say with a grain of salt, I don't know much about it.

But our use of fossil fuels is unstable anyway, better to do something about it sooner rather than later.

And geoengeneering won't cause the economy (big) any trouble, but would do something to lessen the blow of global warming, which is still a problem.

I'd still like your list of more significant issues. I can think of income inequality (globally), which is not something scientists can do much about, food shortages and population growth, which they can do something about but global warming makes worse and...well I'm struggling here. Mabye terrorsits getting nuclear weapons?

I really dont think the problem is "Does global warming exist?" (outside of select minorities). The real debate is "How much have humans affected it?" and "What can we do about it?" Really, for the "Is it humanity" argument is crap to me. It is obvious that things are changing, so it shouldnt matter whose fault it is (unless it IS natural and now we ARE actually throwing the system out of wack, but the odds of that are slim to none). Really, I have no problem with switching to green fuels. There is a machine that is being built that Can turn CO2 into Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet fuel, And there is Geothermal Power, And those Awesome Wave Machines. I would love to have work put into those...but not at the expense of destroying the economy and perfectly good industries (logging, mining, manufacturing, cattle and other ranching, General Agriculture, etc.)

BOOM headshot65:
I really dont think the problem is "Does global warming exist?" (outside of select minorities). The real debate is "How much have humans affected it?" and "What can we do about it?" Really, for the "Is it humanity" argument is crap to me. It is obvious that things are changing, so it shouldnt matter whose fault it is (unless it IS natural and now we ARE actually throwing the system out of wack, but the odds of that are slim to none). Really, I have no problem with switching to green fuels. There is a machine that is being built that Can turn CO2 into Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet fuel, And there is Geothermal Power, And those Awesome Wave Machines. I would love to have work put into those...but not at the expense of destroying the economy and perfectly good industries (logging, mining, manufacturing, cattle and other ranching, General Agriculture, etc.)

And to think I came into this thread upon seeing the most recent post thinking, "Oh god no, I'm already dealing with xpowderx." Since when are you and Seekster so damn sensible? xD I pretty much agree with most of this, beyond the claim that it's slim to none odds that we're throwing the system out of whack (it's a lot better than that according to recent research, actually). Generally, this is an extremely useful, pragmatic viewpoint to hold.

...Also, turning CO2 into gas? That's pretty fucking impressive if it works!

Stagnant:
beyond the claim that it's slim to none odds that we're throwing the system out of whack (it's a lot better than that according to recent research, actually).

So you think that the argument of "the system is working as it should now and trying to fix it will throw it out of wack" ISNT slim to none? Then Again, I guess I wasnt quite clear. What I had ment by that was that there is an exceedingly small minority that says "The system is working as it should, and trying to change it will screw it up." As I said, EXCEEDING SMALL! Also as I said, I am not against a clean envrioment, I am just against trying to put green energy at the top of our list of importance when we have a $15 trillion dollar debt, about 8.5% unemployment, and gas prices around $3.50. Once we get out of the ression, please, by all means, put more work into green energy.

...Also, turning CO2 into gas? That's pretty fucking impressive if it works!

I first read about that machine in a Popular Science article about 5 years ago. While I havent heard anything new about it, at the time, they said it does work (ineffiecently, like 1%, but It DOES work), and that they needed about 10-15 years to work all the kinks out. That was 5 years ago. Trust me, if they got that to work to the point we could be making our own gasoline by burning gasoline, mankind should drop to thier knees and treat the men who created it as living gods!

BOOM headshot65:

Stagnant:
beyond the claim that it's slim to none odds that we're throwing the system out of whack (it's a lot better than that according to recent research, actually).

So you think that the argument of "the system is working as it should now and trying to fix it will throw it out of wack" ISNT slim to none? Then Again, I guess I wasnt quite clear. What I had ment by that was that there is an exceedingly small minority that says "The system is working as it should, and trying to change it will screw it up." As I said, EXCEEDING SMALL! Also as I said, I am not against a clean envrioment, I am just against trying to put green energy at the top of our list of importance when we have a $15 trillion dollar debt, about 8.5% unemployment, and gas prices around $3.50. Once we get out of the ression, please, by all means, put more work into green energy.

I think I still don't get it. Are you arguing against the human element involved in global warming (i.e. that us and our carbon dioxide/methane emissions are main driving forces behind the current warming trend) or not? I'm kinda confused right now.

I first read about that machine in a Popular Science article about 5 years ago. While I havent heard anything new about it, at the time, they said it does work (ineffiecently, like 1%, but It DOES work), and that they needed about 10-15 years to work all the kinks out. That was 5 years ago. Trust me, if they got that to work to the point we could be making our own gasoline by burning gasoline, mankind should drop to thier knees and treat the men who created it as living gods!

Well, from basic chemistry I know it's gonna take a lot of energy to do... Essentially, the reconstitution would need all of the energy lost in the transfer from gasoline to CO2... But yeah, it would be pretty impressive nonetheless.

Stagnant:

I think I still don't get it. Are you arguing against the human element involved in global warming (i.e. that us and our carbon dioxide/methane emissions are main driving forces behind the current warming trend) or not? I'm kinda confused right now.

Well, kind of yes and no arguing against the human element. Yes, there are elements beyond our control that contribute to climate change, but even if humanity is not having an effect on the climate, I think we should strive for a clean enviorment anyway. The whole point of what I origionally said: "unless it IS natural and now we ARE actually throwing the system out of wack, but the odds of that are slim to none" probly would have made more sense if I had written it as "Unless the process of climate change IS natural and by trying to solve it, we ARE actually throwing the system out of wack because we are overcorrecting. But the odds of that are slim to none." <---Because I have seen that argument afew times before in the write-ins section of the local paper (write-ins=letters sent to the paper by citizens and are published)

Well, from basic chemistry I know it's gonna take a lot of energy to do... Essentially, the reconstitution would need all of the energy lost in the transfer from gasoline to CO2... But yeah, it would be pretty impressive nonetheless.

Well, they even said they dont expect it to be incredibly effiecent. They said they are shooting for 10% effiecency and anything over is a bonus. Then again, Nuclear power, the most effiecent powersource [currently] known to man, only has 50% efficency, so I guess 10% is pretty good. From what I read, it uses solar energy and Iron oxide to turn CO2 into Gasoline. He also claims that by substituting Water for the CO2 it can create hydrogen, but I am not to sure on that one.

Stagnant:

Limecake:
I disagree, I think knowing how much is our fault is what the whole debate is about. If we're trying to determine how climate change will alter our planet wouldn't it be important to know what it is we're doing to contribute to it? How are we supposed to stop or slow something when we don't even know how much of the problem is our doing and how much is supposed to happen?

Part of the problem with this is simply that even though we pretty much do know right now, and have very solid models explaining our involvement, people are convinced that it's all a sham, or that every climate scientist is paid off, or that somehow the entire world is fucking wrong. And even if most of us were able to agree on our involvement, it still wouldn't make a difference to many, who would then argue "why bother trying to do anything, it'll just sink our economy" (or, better yet, as China did, "You guys did it, and now it's our turn"). The debate on whether or not it's man-made is, ethically speaking, important, but I find it hard to give a damn about the moral implications when the practical implications are banging down the door. The fact is, we can't really stop this from happening, and we need to prepare for it.

I'm not a climatologist and I have no idea what kind of training or background one needs to become a climatologist. The thing is that even though a lot of people don't see this as a debate it is one.

Well, it's kind of lopsided... On one side, you have those who see the miles upon miles of data and extremely successful computer models, almost every climatologist in the world, and a good portion of the populace. On the other, you have denial, a few fringe scientists with theories that have been debunked, and almost nothing which constitutes real evidence. It's not quite as bad as the Evolution-Creationism debate for a number of reasons, but it's getting there.

just because an idea is popular doesn't make it right. How many people believed the world was flat hundreds of years ago? However it'd be silly to point to that example and say that modern people are as ignorant.

It's also worth noting that this comparison fails horribly because back in Galileo's day, the scientific method essentially did not exist.

Frankly I'm not on one side or the other, I just refuse to take popular opinion as fact. The ability to question things around us is what makes us human, Believing in climate change just because a lot of people believe it is silly.

Well yes, the popular opinion is often horribly, horribly wrong. If the science is dated or refuted, then it can be changed. But this isn't the case at the moment with AGW. There are mountains of evidence for its existence. It's not just popular, it's the best-stated case, and should be assumed to be correct, at least until contradictory evidence rolls around.

Also, there's a difference between "A lot of people believe in something" and "The most well-educated people in their field, and pretty much everyone else, hold up a theory as true based on their interpretation of the available data". When I appeal to the consensus opinion of climatologists, this is what I'm doing.

TWRule:
The problem with the global warming debate isn't that it's getting mired in politics or that people misunderstand the science (although both of those may be true) - it's that it's taken as a significant problem we should all lose sleep over. I'm not talking about the fact that we may not feel its supposed effects, whatever they may be, in our lifetimes - I don't even think posterity ought to worry about this. There are far more significant issues for humanity in general to concern itself with.

In the short term, maybe... In the long term, though, this is going to be a pretty big deal.

xpowderx:
I am amazed to the efforts by Global Warming supporters that keep bringing up the 2007 link.

"The" 2007 link? You said there was nothing in the climate science since 2006 supporting AGW. I proved you wrong.

As such I will provide the current effort concerning that link. Which is here:http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Hows that for big government huh? No more argument. None needed. The 2007 peer reviewed global warming paper is completely debunked! By who? scientists of our own U.S government!

What 2007 paper? As in, which one? What are you even talking about?

Here is the link again, in case you missed it.. DEBUNKED! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

I swear to god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a third-grader. I'd go through it myself, but I've spent enough time on your bullshit. If you're not even going to take the time to TRY to understand the science involved, then I'm not going to take the time to try to explain it to you.

Feel free to debate that or make argument. Because that link is current.

Yes, because this is clearly the year 2007! And because the senate minority is clearly the most reliable scientific group in the history of mankind! And obviously, this issue has been so clearly settled that there are no groups still doing intense research on the issue (such as, say, the CRU and BEST, to name a few).

Man,the imagination and conglomeration of gobbly-goop Global Warming advocates come up with!

Lets try it again sometime!

Reported for trolling. You're not worth debating with. Now kindly get the fuck out of my thread. Oh and, uh, thanks for addressing my points. As I predicted: in one ear, out the other.

First and foremost I do not troll. You made a argument in support of Global Warming, I made one with better evidence against Global warming. If I post something that counters what you want others to believe. That definitely is not trolling. I am not the one swearing, calling someone a name over points being made. I wont post in this thread anymore, but know your entire premise was debunked. For those interested in the peer reviewed scientists here is the Debunk again! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

Good riddance, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Stagnant:
Good riddance, it's like talking to a brick wall.

If I recall correctly he has previously said that climate change is a global conspiracy to promote the democratic party.
I do like how his responce is to repost that link as if he had not done that twice already.

Although correlation is not the same as causation...

image

I'm still sceptical of the man made part of global warming.

Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

I fully support the growing of more trees etc, but I'm sick of what will be a fraudulent 'carbon credits' market (even though my country has much to gain from it).

Stagnant:
Good riddance, it's like talking to a brick wall.

I dunno, i've had more pleasant conversations with doors.

OT: Manmade Global Warming is supported by the experts working in the field, on other fields we usually listen to the people who know something about it, not god (I doubt his really saying much anyway) And certainly not politicians (What the crap do they know about this anyway?) And certainly not listen to private owners of companies who rely on something that would be regulated if politics began to listen to the experts who support the Manmade Global Warming theory for profit. I mean, you have a reason for them to be lying, or at least not listening. So dont listen to them. On top of not knowing anything, they have some good reasons to be very biased. And I guess the last one is obvious, dont trust politicians who's campaigns are in part funded by the people who are biased (against) the issue. Thats just 'two' layers of stupid instead of one.

Worst case scenario if the climatologists are wrong: We have begun to rely on electricity and gas and atomic/wind/water/sun to power our luxury-shit. Big deal. We saved the world for nothing.

Best case. They were right and we prevented disaster.

Best case. They were right and nothing happened.

Worst case scenario if the sceptics are wrong. Lots of people die.

LoFr3Eq:
Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

Which means just about nothing. How does it compare to natural emissions?
Even if we take that statement on face value, can you reach the conclusion that 2% is NOT significant? The climate is a chaos system. Chaos systems are known for massive changes caused by miniscule adjustment of parameters. 2% might be way past what is necessary to cause significant changes.

LoFr3Eq:
I fully support the growing of more trees etc, but I'm sick of what will be a fraudulent 'carbon credits' market (even though my country has much to gain from it).

Agreed. Carbon credit market sounds like a ponzi scheme or something.

Nikolaz72:

Worst case scenario if the climatologists are wrong: We have begun to rely on electricity and gas and atomic/wind/water/sun to power our luxury-shit. Big deal. We saved the world for nothing.

Best case. They were right and we prevented disaster.

Best case. They were right and nothing happened.

Worst case scenario if the sceptics are wrong. Lots of people die.

Sadly, disaster prevention (just like disease prevention) isn't sexy in the least bit. It's the same reason why very few people give a shit about healthcare (as in, doctors helping people preventing sickness) and instead focus completely on sickcare (as in, doctors curing people).

xpowderx:

Nah, im a victim of our President and Ben Bernake producing and printing alot of American dollars and devalueing it to the point of Hyperinflation. Gas prices, food prices and everything else is due to that. Dollar has a lower value, means we pay more for products or services rendered. Has very little to do with oil like those on the left would want us to believe!

I'm going to create a Godwin's equivalent for this.

Whenever an American complains about gas prices, their point is automatically invalidated and they should not be taken seriously for the rest of the discussion.

[/rant]

Also, why capitalize hyperinflation? Actually, have you got a clue just what hyperinflation is? Because it's most definitely not happening to US of A.

Our climate is changing, that's a fact. It's not the first time it's happening. And what SHOULD be done is not play the blame game and making politics out of this. Some people really like putting fingers in their earns and frothing on, huh?

Stagnant:

In the short term, maybe... In the long term, though, this is going to be a pretty big deal.

I don't know how long term you had in mind, but I'm talking about eternity.

asacatman:

Which issues are far more significant?

I'd still like your list of more significant issues. I can think of income inequality (globally), which is not something scientists can do much about, food shortages and population growth, which they can do something about but global warming makes worse and...well I'm struggling here. Mabye terrorsits getting nuclear weapons?

If you're genuinely curious, I was referring to ethical issues: i.e. where humanity should be headed, how we should live together, etc. And no, those aren't anything scientists specifically should be worried about either - I doubt many in this forum are scientists anyway - as human beings though, we should all be concerned about them more than any physical problems that might occur with natural phenomena.

Imperator_DK:

I haven't followed much of the global warming debate, as it doesn't really interest me much. But from what I've seen, it's my impression that scientists have not maintained this absolute dividing line between scientific analysis ("is") and political agenda ("ought to"), and that much of the blame for the distrust in them hence falls upon themselves.

In their quest for much funding, they have lost much legitimacy.

"Scientists are biased against global socioeconomic upheaval! How can we ever trust them again?!

This seems vaguely relevant to the OP.

The Rant:
we're once again faced with the presumption that any slight disagreement in the scientific community = dogs and cats living together. Clearly nothing works if science cannot agree on anything. It used to be that climate deniers would claim that scientists are divided on the issue, which is correct if you divide them into 98% and 2% groups. Now it's as if they can no longer play the controversy card, so they have to reach into another field to find some disagreement.

Bymidew:
...
"Scientists are biased against global socioeconomic upheaval! How can we ever trust them again?!
...

If scientists play the role of politicians, they'll be treated as such.

LoFr3Eq:
Although correlation is not the same as causation...

image

I'm still sceptical of the man made part of global warming.

Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

I fully support the growing of more trees etc, but I'm sick of what will be a fraudulent 'carbon credits' market (even though my country has much to gain from it).

Ooh, I think I've seen this one before.

Isn't that the graph where they left off the last decade of data because it blatantly doesn't match?

I'll be back when I can be arsed digging further.

Edit: About 3 mins in onwards - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked