[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by typoon 

The thing the thread shows is that there is still much debate on "Global Warming" and "climate change" and that no one is sure that it's actually being cause or accelerated by Mankind's use of Cars and other such things.

No it doesn't. It only shows that Conserviate Republicans can post blogs on the intarweb. It also shows that not a single person who claims that there is polarity amongst scientists regarding global climate change can provide a single supported, peer review, documented set of data the contradicts it.

Not one.

So where the hell is this "debate" coming from? It's not from any scientist with a published journal.

[ldb73]

I personally believe its happening, weather patterns are changing drastically whether some of us want to admit it or not. I also believe people like President Bush (if you want to call him that) want Global Warming to increase, not for a world freeze over but more to the point that the Artic thaws out to create a more favorable transit way for cargo ships. Who cares if polar bears become extinct, who cares if the climate changes so drastically that it gets hot then the conveyor belt shuts down completely causing an ice age. As long as its financially profitable, lets do it.
Sarcasm, completely.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by typoon 

But I mentioned that because usually anyone who disagrees with those who say that Global warming IS being caused by mankind are usually shunned by their peers and others.

The amount of data the supports global climate change is almost insurmountable. People aren't "shuned," this isn't religion. They're asked to provide data to the contrary. If they can't, then theyr'e just blowing steam and there's no point in trying to listen. That's why we have peer preview.

[ink]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Nature and Science are the leading science journals in the world. Anything submitted is under peer review. It's as independent as you can get.

No, they're filled with filthy liberal lies and deceit.

Jesus doesn't read Science *and* he drives a Hummer.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ink 

No, they're filled with filthy liberal lies and deceit.

Jesus doesn't read Science *and* he drives a Hummer.

I think Jesus would probably tell you to stop worrying about the planet and save the people.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The amount of data the supports global climate change is almost insurmountable.

But apparently the amount of data that supports the hypothesis that we can do anything to fix it, or what precisely it is we can do that would fix it, is zero. I keep asking for some type of evidenced-based conclusion about how to fix the problem, and no one can find me one. Can you? Please?

To try to put it into more perspective, I keep hearing things like "why can't you be more like the Germans, who have reduced their CO2 output by 15%?" Well even if the US (and China and India) could somehow manage to double that, 30% reduction, would that solve the problem? Or would it just postpone disaster by 2 or 3 years? Or would it postpone it at all? I would be interested to see empirical evidence gathered in service to this question, not just vague assumptions.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

(Here's a hint: glaciers only calve when they're growing)

They calve when they're FLOWing, you genius.

[tie]

That's what I said, too, and he never replied. Maybe he's never seen a glacier?

[ink]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But apparently the amount of data that supports the hypothesis that we can do anything to fix it, or what precisely it is we can do that would fix it, is zero. I keep asking for some type of evidenced-based conclusion about how to fix the problem, and no one can find me one. Can you? Please?

As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, we can't do case/control studies with the Earth. We only have one.

The best we can do is make an educated guess, with models that approximate the environment.

If I understand your question, you're asking for the impossible; at least until we can come up with some sort of model that can accurately simulate the climate (and how do you prove it even is accurate?).

EDIT:

And, if you're truly curious about realistic options that don't involve radical lifestyle changes, this issue of SciAm is very well done:

Scientific American Magazine Table of Contents: September 2006 Issue

In particular:
http://scientificamerican.com/articl...3283414B7F0000

[OreoCookie]

According to a German climate expert who has worked on the UN report that is to be published soon, it takes only 1 % of GDP and a few minor changes in policy that have other benefits as well (bio fuel plants, improving efficiency, etc.). Even countries like China (much to my surprise) already have invested heavily in renewable energy ($180 billion!).

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nope. I said that it's a possibility being put forward by some people and that we have no proof that they're wrong.

The "not any time soon" quote was from a guy who surveys the North Sea who was asked if the supplies there will dry up.

If you're gonna try and mess with me you'd do quite well to get yourself a better memory.

You were pretty adamant about that 'possibility'. By the way I am going to be a millionaire in two months since there is the possiblity that I will win the lottery (actually bad example, I don't play. :-) ). So yeah, provided I was playing, that possibility would actually exists : should I then start spending all I have since I know that there is a possibility that i'll be a millionaire soon. How on earth does that make ANY sense????

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

According to a German climate expert who has worked on the UN report that is to be published soon, it takes only 1 % of GDP and a few minor changes in policy that have other benefits as well (bio fuel plants, improving efficiency, etc.). Even countries like China (much to my surprise) already have invested heavily in renewable energy ($180 billion!).

You are silly, Macrobat et al. showed that global warming is a ploy to destroy America. The USA will not be able to adapt to the new rules. The USA have never been able adapt to anything....

[OreoCookie]

Actually, California has passed appropriate laws already

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The amount of data the supports global climate change is almost insurmountable. People aren't "shuned," this isn't religion.

Comedy gold, right there!

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Actually, California has passed appropriate laws already

I was being facetious. :-)

[typoon]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The amount of data the supports global climate change is almost insurmountable. People aren't "shuned," this isn't religion. They're asked to provide data to the contrary. If they can't, then theyr'e just blowing steam and there's no point in trying to listen. That's why we have peer preview.

While I agree as well as many others that it's happening. I don't think like many others that it's mostly cause by Mankind's use of cars and other such things. It's a cyclical natural occurrence.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ink 

As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, we can't do case/control studies with the Earth. We only have one.

And yet they have done evidence-based experiments to conclude that gobal warming is occurring and is caused by humans. Want to try again?

The best we can do is make an educated guess, with models that approximate the environment.

And what education is it that tells you reducing emissions by 15% is enough to solve this problem?

And, if you're truly curious about realistic options that don't involve radical lifestyle changes, this issue of SciAm is very well done:

Scientific American Magazine Table of Contents: September 2006 Issue

In particular:
http://scientificamerican.com/articl...3283414B7F0000

If I don't "buy" your cause figuratively, what makes you think I'm going to buy it literally? (those are paid articles. do you know the term "preaching to the converted?").

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by typoon 

It's a cyclical natural occurrence.

That's a big assumption on your part.

Besides supplies in oil are limited and it only makes sense to prepare now for alternative energy. If Americans have shown anything during history it's that they are not afraid of change. It seems though that right now, there is a very vocal minority that opposes changes and just wants to have things stay as they are. This behavior strikes me as very un-american in its spirit.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

According to a German climate expert who has worked on the UN report that is to be published soon, it takes only 1 % of GDP and a few minor changes in policy that have other benefits as well (bio fuel plants, improving efficiency, etc.). Even countries like China (much to my surprise) already have invested heavily in renewable energy ($180 billion!).

To what end? That same old 15%? 18% at the most? Is that enough to solve the problem?

There's no point in arguing the costs of reducing CO2 by 15% if it's going to take 50% or 100% reductions to solve the problem. If global warming is as serious as your side makes it out to be, 15% isn't going to do squat.

So what is it? Is 15% the goal, or just a red herring?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There's no point in arguing the costs of reducing CO2 by 15% if it's going to take 50% or 100% reductions to solve the problem. If global warming is as serious as your side makes it out to be, 15% isn't going to do squat.

So what is it? Is 15% the goal, or just a red herring?

Huh? What exactly are you arguing here?
Remember: you are a layman and not exactly in a position to judge what effects a reduction of CO2 emissions by 15, 18, 20 or 50 might have. Hence your line or argumentation `well, I don't buy into it anyway, but if it were true, only a reduction by 50 % or even 100 % (i. e. extinction of mankind ) could stop a catastrophic change in climate' seems rather humorous to me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Then show me the evidence! That's what I've been asking for from the start.

"What am I asking" is exactly the same of you. I'm asking of you: what are you asking? Are you asking everyone, as a group, to reduce CO2 by 15% and then call it a day? Or are you going to ask more and more reductions until they're all gone? What, precisely, is the goal?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by typoon 

While I agree as well as many others that it's happening. I don't think like many others that it's mostly cause by Mankind's use of cars and other such things. It's a cyclical natural occurrence.

There is a cycle given Earth's rotation and axis, but the most recent data from the past 10000 years suggests that this cycle is being interrupted and changed due to human activity.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I think Jesus would probably tell you to stop worrying about the planet and save the people.

I'm not going to use religion as an excuse to foul up the place I live and force other people to clean up after me. At the very least, it's rude. At the very most, what good are we if the entire planet is unsuitable for us to live on it?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"What am I asking" is exactly the same of you. I'm asking of you: what are you asking? Are you asking everyone, as a group, to reduce CO2 by 15% and then call it a day? Or are you going to ask more and more reductions until they're all gone? What, precisely, is the goal?

If you think about the War on Crime, there is no way to eliminate crime completely, but billions are spent each year to prevent some crime. Why? The benefits to society of trying to eliminate crime is far more worthwhile than not trying.

CO2 emission cuts are a start, though not the end-all be-all. I'm not sure what the plan is (if there even is a Plan). I'm happy that some countries, even US states, have decided to work towards the goal.

Obviously, we can start with small percentages of cuts and increase them as time goes on. At some point, inevitably, the availablity of fossil fuels will be effectively zero, and we can choose to coast towards that point gradually, or we can not, and face that point with a dramatic, possibly painful transition.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What is the "War on Crime?" Did you just make that up?

Also, global warming is not about peak oil. If you think it is, I see no reason to keep listening to anything you're saying.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What is the "War on Crime?" Did you just make that up?

Yes. I did. The point being there are lots of things that are not 100% curable - crime, in my example, poverty, exploitation, etc. but that doesn't mean that an effort to, at least, lessen the degree that those things affect society is wasted.

I maintain that taking care of the environment goes along the line of reasoning, of all the other things that affect our civilization deleteriously.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Also, global warming is not about peak oil. If you think it is, I see no reason to keep listening to anything you're saying.

Of course, it's not about peak oil solely. As has been pointed out, other factors contribute to global warming, but not to the degree that fossil fuels do.

Burning of forests release CO2, but generally new forests grow after a few years and take up much of that carbon.

Likewise, cows emit lots of CO2 (and methane) and then grain is grown the next year to feed the next graduating class of Bovine U.

Fossil fuels are burnt and there is little/no way for that carbon to be released. That is to say, there is an imbalance in CO2 going into the environment with the CO2 coming out of the environment. The fossil fuels we burn so readily took millions of years to form.

Compared with the CO2 exchange in the biosphere, fossil fuels cannot effectively be returned to their original state.

The issue of doing something about the problem (CO2 balance) is made easier, or more obvious, thinking about peak oil. It isn't in balance, and it also happens to be a finite resource. So fuel efficiency or emissions cuts helps twice as much - developing new technologies that reduce CO2 and helping transition when peak oil does start to come into play.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And yet they have done evidence-based experiments to conclude that gobal warming is occurring and is caused by humans. Want to try again?

That's an HISTORICAL ANALYSIS; surely you can recognize the difference between that and predictions based on multiple variable sets....

And what education is it that tells you reducing emissions by 15% is enough to solve this problem?

If I don't "buy" your cause figuratively, what makes you think I'm going to buy it literally? (those are paid articles. do you know the term "preaching to the converted?").

Sorry, I don't make the rules on that one. I'd give you the article for free, but I'd be breaking the law.

And I resent the label "cause". It denotes arbitrary and emotional (or "faith-based") conviction.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I think Jesus would probably tell you to stop worrying about the planet and save the people.

I think Jesus would tell you to worry about the planet and the people. Especially those people who want to trash the planet and screw things up for future generations, ahem.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Yes. I did. The point being there are lots of things that are not 100% curable - crime, in my example, poverty, exploitation, etc. but that doesn't mean that an effort to, at least, lessen the degree that those things affect society is wasted.

Can't you see the difference between those things and global warming? Those things all directly affect people, you know, those things that society is made of? CO2 affects people only indirectly. Any small change in it is diluted and reduced due to its indirectness. A 15% effort against crime may have the effect of reducing crime by 10% (there is loss at every step). But a 15% effort against global warming may only have a 3% effect on the actual harm it does humans (more steps between them).

Of course, it's not about peak oil solely. As has been pointed out, other factors contribute to global warming, but not to the degree that fossil fuels do.

Burning of forests release CO2, but generally new forests grow after a few years and take up much of that carbon.

Likewise, cows emit lots of CO2 (and methane) and then grain is grown the next year to feed the next graduating class of Bovine U.

Fossil fuels are burnt and there is little/no way for that carbon to be released. That is to say, there is an imbalance in CO2 going into the environment with the CO2 coming out of the environment. The fossil fuels we burn so readily took millions of years to form.

Compared with the CO2 exchange in the biosphere, fossil fuels cannot effectively be returned to their original state.

The issue of doing something about the problem (CO2 balance) is made easier, or more obvious, thinking about peak oil. It isn't in balance, and it also happens to be a finite resource. So fuel efficiency or emissions cuts helps twice as much - developing new technologies that reduce CO2 and helping transition when peak oil does start to come into play.

Ok, clearly you don't know what "peak oil" means. It means that oil is a finite resource and we will eventually run out of it (the "peak" referring to the point at which we stop collecting more each year than the last, and start collecting less, due to scarcity). It has nothing to do with any harmful side effects of using the resource after it's been collected.

Originally Posted by ink 

That's an HISTORICAL ANALYSIS; surely you can recognize the difference between that and predictions based on multiple variable sets....

There are lots of scientific tools to study things which cannot be measured directly, and I shouldn't have to tell you that anything not subject to scientific study shouldn't have a name like "climate science," unless that's another anomaly like "christian science" or "creation science."

Sorry, I don't make the rules on that one. I'd give you the article for free, but I'd be breaking the law.

Then explain them to me. I asked you a question, you answered with a reference to a paid article. The implication of that is either that the article revealed some fundamental truth to you, which you could explain to me, or that you don't understand the issue well enough to explain it and you're deferring to someone who can. Or you're trying to generate revenue for SciAm. Which is it?

And I resent the label "cause". It denotes arbitrary and emotional (or "faith-based") conviction.

But you do have a "faith-based" conviction. The only alternative to "evidence-based" is "faith-based," when you are talking about convictions, and you just finished telling me that there is no evidence to support your conviction. The "faith" in this case is the faith in the opinions of climate scientists. They may have evidence showing that climate change is our fault, but they don't seem to have any showing what the outcome of our efforts will be. That part is just opinion.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, clearly you don't know what "peak oil" means. It means that oil is a finite resource and we will eventually run out of it (the "peak" referring to the point at which we stop collecting more each year than the last, and start collecting less, due to scarcity). It has nothing to do with any harmful side effects of using the resource after it's been collected.

I understand what "peak oil" is. I can see where some parts of my post could be read otherwise.

I was trying to merge aspects of peak oil and the consequences of burning that fossil fuel into some sort of solution. The aspect of peak oil I wanted to use is its scarcity, its finite nature. We can't use it forever, at least not how we are using it today. The aspect about burning fossil fuels is the CO2 that is released and remains unbalanced in the environment.

CO2 by itself does not endanger human health with the immediacy of a bullet. But since it's released through combustion, you get all the nice health effects of the pollutants accompanied with it, plus CO2 to slowly heat the atmosphere. One is direct, immediate. The other diffuse but widespread.

You're not going to see police tape around the house of someone who died from environmental effects, but you would had it been a gun. Certainly one is more likely to make it on the local news.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then show me the evidence! That's what I've been asking for from the start.

Several people have posted links to reputable sources.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"What am I asking" is exactly the same of you. I'm asking of you: what are you asking? Are you asking everyone, as a group, to reduce CO2 by 15% and then call it a day? Or are you going to ask more and more reductions until they're all gone? What, precisely, is the goal?

Sorry, you don't make sense here.
You were making dubious statements, doubting that there are any tangible effects of global warming, but on the other hand, you somehow `knew' that cutting emissions by 15 % is `not enough'. Sentences like `reducing more and more until they are all gone' just show that you keep on ignoring what all this is about. Your strategy thus is to ridicule others' arguments by exaggerating what others are saying and pretending to be an expert all of a sudden. You can make the claim that `cutting emissions by 15 % isn't going to do squat' just as well as transplanting someone's liver.

The goal is to prevent permanent damage to our economy, our environment and ensuring sustainable growth.

[Snow-i]

But you do have a "faith-based" conviction. The only alternative to "evidence-based" is "faith-based," when you are talking about convictions, and you just finished telling me that there is no evidence to support your conviction. The "faith" in this case is the faith in the opinions of climate scientists. They may have evidence showing that climate change is our fault, but they don't seem to have any showing what the outcome of our efforts will be. That part is just opinion.

qft

Several people have posted links to reputable sources.

In 15+ pages over 3 threads I have yet to see one of these "peer reviewed scientific journals" that your religon is based on validate any of your arguments. You just say they're there and that i should blindly follow you into a life-altering quest.

I've said once, and I shall say again that the burden of proof needs to lie in the facts for this issue, not the opinion of any group of humans (including the scientists). For what you are asking the facts need to be so plainly obvious that everyone can draw the same conclusion from them. Until that happens you have no right to ask me to change my life.

and so far, we are having enough trouble getting you to show us your facts...let alone prove your arguements from them.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Several people have posted links to reputable sources.

That is so not an answer. 1, appeal to an unnamed authority. 2, "reputable" does not mean "evidence-based," and 3, I'm pretty sure you're thinking of so-called reputable sources that only address whether climate change is contributed to by humans, not whether our proposed solutions will have the intended effect, or any effect at all.

Sorry, you don't make sense here.
You were making dubious statements, doubting that there are any tangible effects of global warming

nope.

, but on the other hand, you somehow `knew' that cutting emissions by 15 % is `not enough'.

No, I don't "know" that. You are the one who is making unsubstantiated claims about how our activity can "solve" global warming.* I'm asking you as clearly as I can: is 15% "enough," and if so, on what basis (hopefully some sort of empirical evidence) do you make that conclusion?

* You are the one who's saying "see, it's not so hard, the Germans are doing it just fine." Well there's no way that can be true unless what the Germans are currently doing is "enough."

Sentences like `reducing more and more until they are all gone' just show that you keep on ignoring what all this is about.

No sir. Someone (I think it was Troll) thought I had some mistaken idea that the temperature would go up a few degrees and then hold there, if we continue to do what we're doing. I didn't, of course, but now you are. If we continue to output any CO2 (more than the rate at which it decays), the temperature will still go up (at least according to the story). In that case, what will happen if everyone on earth cuts the same 15% that Germany has? We'll still have global warming, that's what. Well forgive me for being reluctant to throw my car away when it won't end up stopping global warming after all.

Your strategy thus is to ridicule others' arguments by exaggerating what others are saying and pretending to be an expert all of a sudden. You can make the claim that `cutting emissions by 15 % isn't going to do squat' just as well as transplanting someone's liver.

No, I'm asking not telling, and I'm not pretending to be an expert. I'm pointing out that even the experts apparently have no empirical basis for thinking that any proposed measure will be enough to stop the problem. The only way to get you to acknowledge the question is by making a counter-claim, which is the obvious: no, 15% is not enough to solve the problem. I would love for you to refute that statement, with evidence, because that is what I've been trying to get out of you and everyone else the whole time, evidence. It's really the only reason I made the statement in the first place.

The goal is to prevent permanent damage to our economy, our environment and ensuring sustainable growth.

Ok, that's a start. Now how much reduction in CO2 do you believe will be necessary to accomplish that?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I understand what "peak oil" is. I can see where some parts of my post could be read otherwise.

Fair enough

I was trying to merge aspects of peak oil and the consequences of burning that fossil fuel into some sort of solution.

Don't.

The aspect of peak oil I wanted to use is its scarcity, its finite nature. We can't use it forever, at least not how we are using it today.

The free market is a superb regulator of this issue. The oil will not run out all at once. It will become gradually more and more expensive to retrieve, and as that happens, alternative energy technologies will become comparatively more attractive, and they will supercede oil just as oil superceded horse- and human-power.

The aspect about burning fossil fuels is the CO2 that is released and remains unbalanced in the environment.

That's what the last 13 pages have been about. I think everyone who's gotten this far is already aware of this.

CO2 by itself does not endanger human health with the immediacy of a bullet. But since it's released through combustion, you get all the nice health effects of the pollutants accompanied with it, plus CO2 to slowly heat the atmosphere. One is direct, immediate. The other diffuse but widespread.

You're not going to see police tape around the house of someone who died from environmental effects, but you would had it been a gun. Certainly one is more likely to make it on the local news.

Your prose is muddled and incoherent. You have the seed of an idea here, it seems, but I'm not going to waste time trying to decipher it. Work on making your ideas clear, and maybe you'll have something during the next climate change thread. Good luck.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Has anyone ever seen the Futurama episode "Crimes of the Hot?" Al Gore used a clip of it in his movie (Al Gore also guest starred in the episode). They moved the earth slightly farther from the sun, "thus cooling it." Could that work? Or spraying a cloud of dust into a tighter orbit to block part of the sun's rays from reaching us?

Also, couldn't we engineer a microbe that could wander the atmosphere fixing carbon into carbohydrates (or oil)? Or just a microbe that makes an enzyme or enzyme pathway we could harvest and stick in a bunch of weather balloons? Or find another gas that has the opposite greenhouse effect and release that?

Abstinence just doesn't strike me as a reasonable solution.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I don't think there's much of a historic basis to the idea that we can "technologize" our way out of human planetary impacts. Each new "step" forward seems to, at some point down the road, lead us to an entirely new problem.

Author Ronald Wright calls this concept the "progress trap." If we're not growing, we're failing – but this prevalent idea simply ignores the fact that growing must stop at some point. The state of our technology today means we can grow until we run into the power to completely destroy ourselves, however. (Atom bomb much?)

Anyways, I'm drunk. And I'm snowboarding today. And that's amoré!

greg