Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,207 Year: 5,464/9,624 Month: 489/323 Week: 129/204 Day: 3/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9361
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 76 of 971 (750447)
02-15-2015 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by marc9000
02-15-2015 9:08 PM


So you agree with Galbraith?
Interesting. But not surprising. Most conservatives seem to be proud of their selfishness.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2015 9:08 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 695 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 77 of 971 (750450)
02-15-2015 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by frako
02-13-2015 9:15 AM


How hot it is going to get due to co2 greenhouse forcing?....miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by frako, posted 02-13-2015 9:15 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2015 8:23 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 971 (750452)
02-16-2015 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by foreveryoung
02-15-2015 11:07 PM


... miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.
Data?
References?
How hot it is going to get due to co2 greenhouse forcing?....miniscule compared to the heat due to less sunlight being reflected back into space since 1970 from significantly less cloud cover compared to pre-1970 times.
Which fails to explain the continued trend to hottest years on record -- 15 of the last 16?
If the earth is still warming and the cloud cover is less than before then energy available for warming is greater than the cooling effect of reflected energy that was lost due to cloud cover changes ... yes?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2015 11:07 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 418 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 79 of 971 (750453)
02-16-2015 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by marc9000
02-15-2015 9:04 PM


"Billions of lives" - that's emotion, there's no evidence.
Well our archaeologist from the future could already say that this was the time of a mass extinction event, it just depends on our choices if the human species will be on the list of animals that went extinct.
Those things can eventually happen due to free market forces, not government mandates.
Free market forces are driven by profit there is no profit to be made in protecting the environment.
That would be beautiful in a perfect world. But it's not a perfect world, as the leadership of Cincinnati recently proved all too well.
Yea i know i really should stop putting my robot army idea to conquer the world so i can save it on the back burner. The events you describe sound to me someone wanted to siphon some money out of the governments pocket and this was his idea on how to do it. Its the cost of democracy your bound to get some thieves in to office.
If global warming was the only threat to mankind, you might have a point. But it's not, many are realistic enough to see that there are other potential problems, like economic meltdowns, terror attacks, wars, you know, things that history tells us can and have happened, and will happen again if identical mistakes are made. Then there are CURRENT, actual problems, like poverty, not only in the U.S. but around the world. History tells us that increasing productivity actually works, in reducing poverty. Redistributing income, reducing productivity, is largely what "doing something" about global warming is all about. It creates more poverty.
So how are we doing on those fronts? And weather we succeed or not would not matter if the worst case scenario of global warming happens the extinction of the human species.
The Klyoto Protocol was signed into existence. Most new cars worldwide are required to conform to increasingly stringent pollution standards. Power plants are held to increasingly stringent standards. Many things (like those outlined in message 65) are being voluntarily done. Plenty is being done. Why is it never enough? Why are there always calls from the political left to do more, to mandate more of others?
Yea its not enough we are still increasing our output of CO2 every year we need to start decreasing it.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 02-15-2015 9:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 695 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 80 of 971 (750480)
02-16-2015 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
02-16-2015 8:23 AM


Data and references later as time permits.
Which fails to explain the continued trend to hottest years on record -- 15 of the last 16?
If less low level cloud cover caused the temperature increase from 1970 to 1998, why could it not also explain the warming of the last 16 years which was puny in comparison to the aforementioned years?
If the earth is still warming and the cloud cover is less than before then energy available for warming is greater than the cooling effect of reflected energy that was lost due to cloud cover changes ... yes?
You mean greater shortwave radiation available for later entrapment by the greenhouse effect? Yes, but I'm not sure that is what you meant. If so, then that only strengthens my point. I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration. The amplification of the energy from extra sunlight without the clouds is neglible compared to the extra energy being amplified.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2015 8:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2015 4:51 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2015 9:21 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2015 12:22 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2015 9:09 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
glowby
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(5)
Message 81 of 971 (750485)
02-16-2015 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by marc9000
02-12-2015 8:47 PM


marc9000 writes:
My suspicion is, (that I"ve mentioned earlier in this thread) is that global warming advocates never feel that they themselves are part of the problem.
I can't speak for everyone, but it's perfectly obvious to me that everyone who burns fossil fuels, directly or indirectly, is part of the problem. The only way to utterly avoid it is to hike naked into a forest and become a survivalist/hunter-gatherer for the rest of your life. And even then, according to you, you'd still be adding to the problem every time you exhaled, belched or farted.
So, no matter what anyone's response, you can call them a hypocrite for accepting global warming and believing we should try to do something about it.
Another way to be a part of the problem is to vigorously and publicly deny there's a problem, and spread disinformation about the existence of the problem to support other people's denial of it - like you and Charlie Daniels. And this gets back to my original reply to you. It's pointless to discuss blame or solutions to the problem with someone who is in denial of the problem.
marc9000 writes:
Global warming was not presented to the general public before the 1990's . ... So you see, global warming got, and continues to get, ALL of it's attention because of politics ...
It's true that few people seemed to care much about it until around the time that Gore sounded the alarm. (BTW, I would agree that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a sensationalist piece of trash. I blame him for a good part of the political polarization that has followed.) However, for those who don't have a stake in denying it, it gets its attention because of the probable consequences of ignoring it.
marc9000 writes:
... since implied remedies for it consist mainly of punishing the successful, to "remedy disparities of power and opportunity.
The main thrust of most proposed solutions has been to conserve energy and rely less on fossil fuel energy, and to accomplish it using personal choices, technology, and government incentives. Carbon taxes at the pump, for example, "punish" the poor as much or more than the successful. According to ultra-cons, every penny the government spends to protect the environment or benefit society is "redistribution of wealth". Redistribution is indeed occurring. The 1% keep getting richer and the other 99% get poorer.
marc9000 writes:
Fred Singer is probably to global warming what Michael Behe is (was) to biology.
Hahahaha! Good analogy! Interesting how you need to cite fringe scientists on both fronts, and then pretend that they've "refuted" all the others. It's yet another hallmark of conspiracy theorists.
marc9000 writes:
Politics IS involved, isn't it?
Indeed it is. It gets involved in almost everything. But it doesn't change facts.
marc9000 writes:
quote:
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data...
Something very odd is that Homewood (supposedly) visited the 4 main reporting stations in Paraguay to retrieve the historical raw data, although it's available at the GHCN website and would have shown the very same adjustments that he noted. This isn't "evidence coming to light". It's sensationalist spin. A single station provides thousands of pieces of data "evidence". He's going to have to pick a lot more cherries before he can claim a genuine conspiracy or reveals his cherry-picking methodology.
marc9000 writes:
The U.S Department of Commerce? Could it be..........POLITICS?
I'm not DENYing that politics has gotten involved. I'm saying that you're arguing from consequences; that you're denying the facts because of their political consequences.
marc9000 writes:
There are no explosions going on with global warming
True. There are only relatively unsensational warning signs at the moment: slowly rising global temps, slowly rising sea levels, slowly melting glaciers, somewhat more severe droughts and storm surges. But all are happening at an increasing pace. Only a fool would ignore the signs and write them off as politics.
marc9000 writes:
They [global warming advocates] haven't taken much time [to answer your questions], it's all out there to copy/paste. Posting charts and graphs and numbers that I have no way of knowing how accurate they are.
Yes, you do have a way of knowing. But it takes time and effort. Check out Muller's site at Environmental science, data, and analysis of the highest qualityIndependent, non-governmental, and open-source. - Berkeley Earth. He does all he can to cut through the crap for you, and explain how he too distrusted the data, and then took a long hard look at it, picking it to pieces. The stuff we've been posting is about the same as what he concluded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by marc9000, posted 02-12-2015 8:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:40 PM glowby has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 82 of 971 (750492)
02-16-2015 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 2:10 PM


At this point your claims are empty. Can you not provide even one reference?
I'd like to discuss this with you, but right now I don't see the point. Throw us a bone.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 9:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 695 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 83 of 971 (750500)
02-16-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by NoNukes
02-16-2015 4:51 PM


The science is supposedly settled right? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade carbon dioxide is the by far the biggest causal factor in the atmospheric warming since 1970? Case closed, debate over right? Do we know how much sunlight has been reflected into space prior to 1970 and from 1970 onward? If there is as much as a 4% decrease in reflected sunlight since 1970 compared to a similar amount of time before 1970, the amount of energy supposedly being trapped by greenhouse gasses is small in comparison. If that is the case, the debate is far from over. I don't save every paper I read. Sometimes it is hard to find the same paper again if you haven't looked at it in awhile. Next post will list one paper and highlight the portion that states what I just said. Here is one of the papers..http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837#.VOK3GqAo7qB
You can download the PDF after you pull up the link. I will pull up other papers as I have time to find them and quote the portions that I paraphrased from distant memory in my prior two posts.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2015 4:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 02-16-2015 10:15 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2015 11:08 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2015 9:34 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 84 of 971 (750503)
02-16-2015 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 9:32 PM


yup, the debate is over
Yup, the debate is over. It's settled.
It really is so simple that only those who are delusional or willfully ignorant or conmen do not understand that regardless of what causes global warming, it is only the human created contributions we can currently address.
If the major contributor is natural causes instead of man made then that only means we need to reduce the human contributions even further.
A best we can say that climate change deniers are just plain ignorant or delusional instead of being the typical Christian Cult of Ignorance snake oil peddlers.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 9:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 85 of 971 (750508)
02-16-2015 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 9:32 PM


The science is supposedly settled right? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that manmade carbon dioxide is the by far the biggest causal factor in the atmospheric warming since 1970? Case closed, debate over right? Do we know how much sunlight has been reflected into space prior to 1970 and from 1970 onward?
Slow down cowboy. I asked you to back up your claims with references.
Sometimes it is hard to find the same paper again if you haven't looked at it in awhile
Nobody required you to post before you were ready.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 9:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 86 of 971 (750519)
02-17-2015 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 2:10 PM


Data and references later as time permits.
And I can wait.
If less low level cloud cover caused the temperature increase from 1970 to 1998, why could it not also explain the warming of the last 16 years which was puny in comparison to the aforementioned years?
You are aware that the purported "pause" in global warming has been shown to be an artifact of incomplete data aren't you?
global warming pause debunked - Search
First hit:
quote:
Yeah, About That Global Warming Pause
... First off, the plot used by people who would deny the Earth is warming up (and that humans are behind it) only shows the temperature of the air over land and ocean. But our atmosphere (pardon the weird metaphor) doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the extra heat retained by our planet is also warming the oceans. In fact, most of that heat is going into deep ocean waters.
Second, if you look at temperatures historically, we see ups and down like this every few decades; you have to look at the overall multidecade trend and not focus on some short (and cherry-picked) time frame.
A new study shows that the temperatures over the past 15 years are still on the rise. The problem, say the authors, is that the global surface temperatures have been based on incomplete data, with some regions left out (most notably over Africa, the Arctic, and Antarctica). The most northerly latitudes have been warming faster on average than other spots on Earth since the late 1990s, so if you leave them out you see a somewhat cooler global average than you should.
Variations do not refute the long term trend.
See how reference to actual science and data strengthens an argument?
You mean greater shortwave radiation available for later entrapment by the greenhouse effect? Yes, but I'm not sure that is what you meant. If so, then that only strengthens my point. I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration. The amplification of the energy from extra sunlight without the clouds is neglible compared to the extra energy being amplified.
Baseless conjectures are not how science is done, nor is it how science is refuted. You need evidence, such as what is found in references and actual data.
So, again I wait for a real argument.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 971 (750552)
02-18-2015 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 2:10 PM


Counter argument
I am claiming that the energy reflected back into space by low level clouds is many magnitudes greater than the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide at today's concentration.
On its face, this claim is counter intuitive. Water vapor is yet another greenhouse gas. It is not clear that increasing water in the atmosphere would make the earth cooler. Let's note that a cloud blanket keeps heat out by reflection and in by the green house effect. It is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy that causes temperature to go up.
As an extreme example, Venus is completely covered by clouds, and yet the surface temperature is 'the temperature of molten lead'.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1518 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 88 of 971 (750557)
02-18-2015 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 2:10 PM


More climate change data references
Here is some additional information on the status of climate change science
quote:
Jury in on climate change, so stop using arguments of convenience and listen to experts
As a Nobel Prize winner, I travel the world meeting all kinds of people.
Most of the policy, business and political leaders I meet immediately apologise for their lack of knowledge of science.
Except when it comes to climate science. Whenever this subject comes up, it never ceases to amaze me how each person I meet suddenly becomes an expert.
Facts are then bandied to fit an argument for or against climate change, and on all sides, misconceptions abound.
The confusion is not surprising — climate science is a very broad and complicated subject with experts working on different aspects of it worldwide.
No single person knows everything about climate change. And for the average punter, it's hard to keep up with all the latest research and what it means.
More surprising is the supreme confidence that non-experts (scientists and non-scientists alike) have in their own understanding of the subject.
Dunning—Kruger effect anyone?
quote:
I am a full-time scientist whose area of expertise intersects with certain aspects of climate science. I, too, am not an expert on climate science.
But I do understand how science works. I understand that the current consensus has been reached by thousands of scientists working for decades. And I understand that the vast majority of scientists and scientific bodies, including the Australian Academy of Science, have reached broadly the same conclusions.
The academy's "The science of climate change: questions and answers" report — a document written and reviewed by Australia's most expert climate scientists — explains what we know, what we don't know and how we might mediate future changes.
These are the real experts on climate change and this is what they're saying:
  • Earth's climate has changed over the past century. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, and glaciers and ice sheets have decreased in size.
  • The best available evidence indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause.
  • Continuing increases in greenhouse gases will produce further warming and other changes in Earth's physical environment and ecosystems.
My own scientific opinions in my areas of expertise are consistent with their conclusions.
The body of evidence on climate change is not contained in one paper, one set of observations, or by one person — rather it encompasses thousands of people's ideas and observations.
This is why it is so important for the country's pre-eminent scientific body to write this document, synthesising all of this disparate information into a coherent assessment of the science.
Having this information in one place means that the nation's decision-makers have the best scientific opinion on the subject, so that they can stop arguing about the science, and instead focus on their job, which is figuring out the most appropriate policy response to climate change, given the best available knowledge.
The evidence is clear: human activities are changing the Earth's climate, and what we do now and into the future will strongly influence the world's weather in the decades and centuries to come.
So unless you look at all the data from all the fields of study you are
  • not looking at all the evidence
  • cherry picking singular bits of evidence
  • not competent to criticize the whole picture
An example is the so-called pause in atmospheric temperatures, which ignores the arctic zones and the ocean temperatures.
quote:
Australian scientists make fresh attempt at explaining climate change
Australia's leading science body has reissued its climate change booklet in a bid to improve public understanding of the contentious subject.
The Australian Academy of Science was prompted to update the information based on new research and public questions since its original release in 2010.
Most available material is either too technical for the lay reader and usually omits some of the basics, such as how scientists know humans are causing global warming and what future projections are based on, said Steven Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of NSW.
"There is so much misinformation or confusing information out there, that we thought it would be nice to gather in one place an accessible explanation," Professor Sherwood said.
About 97 per cent of scientists who study the climate accept that humans are having an impact, with carbon dioxide — mostly emitted from humans burning fossil fuels — the primary driver.
"Even though carbon dioxide is not the only influence on climate, over the long term it will have such a large effect, it has to be brought under control no matter what else we do," Professor Sherwood said.
The academy report notes global carbon dioxide emissions rose at an average annual rate of 3.2 per cent between 2000 and 2012, at the top end of previous projections. These emissions, though, will have to start falling at a pace between 5.5 and 8 per cent for the planet to have a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature increases to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels.
World leaders will gather in Paris in December to thrash out a global climate treaty aimed at reducing carbon emissions beyond 2020. Countries, including Australia, are expected to announce their targets by the end of next month.
The heads of Britain's three main political parties agreed at the weekend to phase out all coal-fired power plants unless their emissions can be captured.
Americans should be ashamed that Australia and England are taking steps when the US is bogged down by ignorance and the GOP war on science and education.
quote:
The academy report notes average surface warming had slowed since 2001 despite rising carbon emissions but said decadal variability in how oceans and the atmosphere exchange heat meant extra warmth had been absorbed by the seas. Other changes such as the increasing incidence of heat extremes, shrinking Arctic sea ice — its thickness dropping 30 per cent in 30 years — and rising sea levels had all continued unabated.
It is well known that the greenhouse effect is important for sustaining life on Earth — temperatures would be 33 degrees cooler without it. Perhaps less well known is the role rising temperatures have on concentrations of water vapour, a key greenhouse gas.
"When global average atmospheric temperatures rise, global water vapour concentrations increase, amplifying the initial warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect," the report says. "[T]his feedback approximately doubles the sensitivity of climate to human activities."
"For Australia, a warmer future will likely mean that extreme precipitation is more intense and more frequent, interspersed with longer dry spells," the report says.
Sounds exactly like what is happening out west.
quote:
While societies and nations will face varying challenges to cope with climate change, many natural ecosystems are likely to face extinction.
Native animals that depend on cooler mountain habitats, for instance, will be particularly vulnerable. Scientists examining the fate of 50 species in the Wet Tropics bioregion in north Queensland found they would be all but wiped out with a 5-degree temperature increase.
And I would expect numerous speciation events to occur -- macroevolution -- as ecological niches are opened up.
Whether the human race is one of the species to survive depends on how much it can adapt to the changing environment.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 2:10 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 971 (750560)
02-18-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by foreveryoung
02-16-2015 9:32 PM


If that is the case, the debate is far from over.
Okay, so all the scientists that are saying otherwise...
Do you think they are ignorant, or do you think they are lying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by foreveryoung, posted 02-16-2015 9:32 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2015 8:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 90 of 971 (750646)
02-19-2015 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by glowby
02-16-2015 2:28 PM


I can't speak for everyone, but it's perfectly obvious to me that everyone who burns fossil fuels, directly or indirectly, is part of the problem. The only way to utterly avoid it is to hike naked into a forest and become a survivalist/hunter-gatherer for the rest of your life. And even then, according to you, you'd still be adding to the problem every time you exhaled, belched or farted.
Not really according to me, but it seems to be according to the scientific studies about it, since there isn't any concrete way to distinguish between certain humans that cause it, (either by their production of products, or their consumption of products), and other humans who do nothing to cause it.
So, no matter what anyone's response, you can call them a hypocrite for accepting global warming and believing we should try to do something about it.
My reasons for entering this thread are in my first substantial, yet brief, opening Message 8. There were no responses to that particular message, and it's very telling that of all 11, (count em, 11) of my opponents, not a single one of them has agreed with me that "doing something" about global warming involves politics and ethics, not necessarily science.
Another way to be a part of the problem is to vigorously and publicly deny there's a problem, and spread disinformation about the existence of the problem to support other people's denial of it - like you and Charlie Daniels. And this gets back to my original reply to you. It's pointless to discuss blame or solutions to the problem with someone who is in denial of the problem.
What you consider to be a denial could just be more a case of priorities. Some people, (many millions actually) believe that a U.S. or worldwide financial crash could be much more costly, and much more devastating. Or a germ warfare attack throughout a significant part of the U.S. by terrorists. It's not really "misinformation" to prioritize problems in a different way than what militant global warming alarmists do.
It's true that few people seemed to care much about it until around the time that Gore sounded the alarm. (BTW, I would agree that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a sensationalist piece of trash. I blame him for a good part of the political polarization that has followed.)
What specifically, (basically, briefly) did Gore do that you don't agree with?
However, for those who don't have a stake in denying it, it gets its attention because of the probable consequences of ignoring it.
I posted the following link earlier, there were no comments.
Forbidden
Does something like this get any kind of thoughtful consideration by the scientific community, or is it automatically dismissed, for political reasons?
marc9000 writes:
Politics IS involved, isn't it?
Indeed it is. It gets involved in almost everything. But it doesn't change facts.
Just what a "fact" is can be hard to define. There have always been plenty of scientific predictions about climate change (warming and cooling) that turned out to not be factual.
True. There are only relatively unsensational warning signs at the moment: slowly rising global temps, slowly rising sea levels, slowly melting glaciers, somewhat more severe droughts and storm surges. But all are happening at an increasing pace. Only a fool would ignore the signs and write them off as politics.
Unless that fool noted so many past predictions turned out to be WRONG. The scientific community needs to learn that there are consequences to making wrong predictions.
Yes, you do have a way of knowing. But it takes time and effort. Check out Muller's site at Environmental science, data, and analysis of the highest qualityIndependent, non-governmental, and open-source. - Berkeley Earth. He does all he can to cut through the crap for you, and explain how he too distrusted the data, and then took a long hard look at it, picking it to pieces. The stuff we've been posting is about the same as what he concluded.
I'll try to do that when I get time. But I have no way of knowing just what his part is in the $22 Billion dollars the taxpayers provide annually for this political movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by glowby, posted 02-16-2015 2:28 PM glowby has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by glowby, posted 02-20-2015 1:43 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 02-20-2015 10:27 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 02-20-2015 1:44 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024