Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Another Global Warming Thread

Another Global Warming Thread (Page 5)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 10:53 AM
 
The one thing I've learned about infractions; don't take them personally. A mod cannot adjudicate every single post, but can identify a downward trend, choose one, and make an example of it. It happens to the best of us. Chillax.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The more I read from you, the more convinced I am that you're interpreting the study backwards which incidentally, has lead to a "logic" test that is little more than a "gotcha" trap-door of leading questions.
It's not a "gotcha" in the slightest; you're just considering it such because it proves my point and disproves yours. It's a straightforward logic test with a clear right answer based on logical reasoning principles. It's hilarious that you simply chose not to answer instead of trying to back up your claim of how it's a "gotcha test."

(As a general FYI, I spent several years writing logical reasoning questions, for money, for a standardized-test tutoring company here in North America (LSAT/GMAT tests). That work was based on my scores on these type of logical/critical questions on both the LSAT and GMAT; I had 1 of these questions incorrect on the LSAT and 1 incorrect on the GMAT. This particular company was more than happy to have me draft these particular sections of their tutoring materials. My "logic test" to you is by no means of LSAT-test quality, but the answer is still easily obtained by a quick read.

If you do not feel that b) is the correct answer, please explain why that is the case, rather than simply choosing to claim it's not a valid test.)

The real answer, of course, is that you'd prefer just to talk around the subject instead of answering the pointed questions. The rest of your post is simply more obfuscation - a bunch of general statements of fact which everyone already knows, followed by the very first conclusions that you initially made. That's not a reasoned argument; it's a throw-it-at-the-wall approach, which is simply the same old political tactic I called you on in the first place.

Now in this case the lion's share of CO2 output was produced by oceanic methane hydrates
Really? Please show me where the study said that. My understanding is that we don't know where the CO2 output came from - just one of many things we don't know about the PETM world. The authors themselves certainly didn't make this claim:
Originally Posted by The Study
The pattern of the carbon input scenario required by the model to match observations (Fig. 1a) seems to be consistent with carbon release from oceanic gas hydrate reservoirs. The pulsed input pattern could indicate carbon release from different ocean basins or depth horizons containing gas hydrate. The continued release could be explained by non-steady-state fluxes from marine gas hydrate systems following the initial dissociation of gas hydrate or fluxes from marine/terrestrial sedimentary reservoirs.
The "what we don't know" and "uncertainty" prevalent in the study and in Zeebe's own account of the study. A science in its infancy.
It's amazing that you choose to interpret their professed "uncertainty" solely as the infancy of the science, rather than the uncertainty of measuring an abrupt climate change 55 million years ago based solely on raw temperature and the amount of carbon prsent in the carbon cycle.

if the CO2 levels do not account for the warming, there's certainly no reason why the only conclusion should be greater climate sensitivity to CO2.
I specifically did not say "to CO2". It's amazing that you would think so, considering I've spent the last 3 pages hammering on the point that the effects of CO2 are more or less calculable at this point. I said "to warming" - or, in other words, the sensitivity of our climate to warming:
Originally Posted by my quote
global warming effects may be larger than what we currently predict.
There's a big difference.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It seems to me that conservatives are just very very attached to their opinions, values and lifestyle choices.
And Liberals aren't?

Where people who are less conservative might look at new information and say "Well it looks like I should stop doing that, even though I've been doing/enjoying it for years, its obviously bad for me/other people/the world", conservatives just say "I've been doing that for years and I'm not going to stop no matter what you say."
Or like, "it looks like we've been quoting "science" to predict doom for years and years and it pretty much never comes to fruition, so maybe we should stop using it to claim impending doom just so we can get people to do all the stuff we were already inclined to want them to do in the first place?"
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:42 AM
 
Ohhhhhhh, I get it. Rule 9 means we can no longer tell people that are completely wrong when they:

1) make the same argument they've been shown to be completely wrong on in every previous such thread;
2) contradicting themselves in a shockingly outrageous fashion, or
3) simply troll the thread by introducing completely irrelevant or inflammatory material without comment or citation?

Perhaps if you put a little more energy into enforcing Rule 8 - you know, the one that's been broken by mattyb and stupendousman and others about 10 times in this very thread, let alone the hundreds of times in every other thread on this topic, all with zero public comment by you - we wouldn't need to get to Rule 9.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Do you know who the scientists were that Life was quoting?
No, I don't. Again, are you saying that Life is lying? Are you saying that people would lie about consensus among scientists in order to foment fear?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
The fact that you can't seemingly understand the difference between a "scientific consensus" and "outrageous predictions" offered by (at best) a handful of scientists is, simply put, astonishing.
So you are saying that there isn't, and has never been scientific consensus that we are doing things that will cause climate catastrophe (an outrageous prediction)?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Ohhhhhhh, I get it. Rule 9 means we can no longer tell people that are completely wrong when they:

1) make the same argument they've been shown to be completely wrong on in every previous such thread;
The problem is that this only happens in your head. Just because you refuse (or are unable to understand) why you haven't proved the other guy completely wrong, doesn't grant you the right to be rude and just insult people. It just drags the debate down and make YOU look silly.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:53 AM
 
Uhhh, what? Your "outrageous predictions" offered were "global cooling" and "global starvation". Neither which were based on scientific consensus. Why are you now trying to turn around your comments on global warming?

As for scientific consensus on global climate change: there is no consensus at all on whether it will be a "catashrophe." The consensus is that it will significantly change our current climate. Whether human beings will be able to sufficiently adapt is an entirely separate issue over which there is a huge amount of debate; there is certainly no consensus that the result will be a "catastrophe".

Finally, standard common sense says that if our world undergoes some of the climate fluctuations that it has clearly undergone in the past, then yes, it will be a "catastrophe" for human existence as we know it. But there is certainly no consensus that our current climate change is a harbringer of that type of climate change.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, I don't. Again, are you saying that Life is lying?
Lying about what? That there is scientific consensus that "in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution" and "by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half"? Life made no such claim about there being a consensus. The part left out of the quote being circulated is this:
Originally Posted by Life Magazine - ECOLOGY: a cause becomes a mass movement, January 30, 1970
Unless something is done to reverse environmental deterioration, say many qualified experts, horrors lie in wait. Others disagree, but scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support each of the following predictions:"
I put a little effort into finding this vaguely referenced article. They clearly call out, in the second sentence of the article, that other qualified experts disagree. Are they being sensationalist? Sure. Are they lying? No. Are they claiming consensus from the scientific community? No.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Are you saying that people would lie about consensus among scientists in order to foment fear?
I've already said as much. Unfortunately, I think it's happening on both sides of the argument; we have people trying to foment fears of environmental collapse if we don't do something and people trying to foment fears of economic collapse if we *do* do something. Vaguely referenced and out-of-context statements from 40 years ago are as bad as vaguely implying scientific consensus when there is none.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; May 27, 2012 at 01:03 PM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

All from the assurances from respectable scientists (and this was from early 1970 alone)

...and even now we get people on forums trying to push away from the notion that we were told for the past twenty years that the science was settled that we were going to get hotter and hotter until disaster happened in the very near future unless we submitted to left-wing schemes to limit capitalism and progress, only to again change their stories.

Fool me once... Talk about thick headed!

More sads....
It's interesting that all of these blogs have the exact same list as your's ... can you find any blogs to copy-and-paste quotes from for the 1980s?
Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2012. | The TexasFred Blog
Some Lighthearted Reading for the Weekend — Earth Day predictions of 1970 | Quixotes Last Stand
Earth Day : Urbin Report
http://thedailycannibal.com/2011/04/...e-your-planet/
Earth Day 2010 Special: 15 spectacularly stupid predictions from the first Earth Day | Louis Hissink's Crazy World
Message to Earth Day Doomsayers: It’s Getting Better, Not Worse | The Daily Capitalist
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It's interesting that all of these blogs have the exact same list as your's ...
Yes, it is. Google is your friend. It makes life easy. No need to redo work you already know exists.

Is belittling sources the best you can do?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Uhhh, what? Your "outrageous predictions" offered were "global cooling" and "global starvation".
Uh, no. Not even close. Here's an example I quoted:

"By 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half."

Maybe the problem with your understanding of these matters is that you just read what you want to and react, instead of actually trying to grasp the bigger picture?

Why are you now trying to turn around your comments on global warming?
Responder has TOTALLY not paid a bit of attention to the debate at all, likely due to an inability to see beyond his own preconceived notions. NOTED.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 02:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Yes, it is. Google is your friend. It makes life easy. No need to redo work you already know exists.

Is belittling sources the best you can do?
Belittle? No. But, you do realize that repeating the same post everywhere, the posters are attempting to create the impression of consensus? It also suggests that, over the last 40 years, there are only 15 examples (stretched as some of them are) of your point.

Are you going to address the point that the Life quote, when presented in context of the article it came from, doesn't make the claim you've been trying to say it does?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Belittle? No. But, you do realize that repeating the same post everywhere, the posters are attempting to create the impression of consensus?
Maybe. More likely they are just like me. They remember all the hysterical calls to action over the past 40 years. However, just saying you remember them isn't good enough. People will deny such a thing existed because they aren't very old and don't have an experience with this sort of thing, forgot, are trying to be dishonest or simply haven't been paying attention. Look at this thread for instance. I could pull a thousand citations and it still wouldn't convince certain people.

It also suggests that, over the last 40 years, there are only 15 examples (stretched as some of them are) of your point.
I'm pretty sure that those 15 examples where all culled from sources from about a 3 or 4 month period in 1970. Given that, I don't this it suggests at all what you infer.

Are you going to address the point that the Life quote, when presented in context of the article it came from, doesn't make the claim you've been trying to say it does?
That scientists believed something outrageous that the media chose to highlight, but other scientists didn't and their views weren't given the same importance? I'm not sure how that hurts my claim. It's the same thing we've seen for the past 40 years. Life was gentler than many sources have been to the scientists who "deny" what is popular belief in order to foment fear. But that was one of just a few examples of predictions, backed by "science' which are claimed are supported by "scientists" that never came true, where there was an attempt to get people to do what the left already wants them to.

Lather, rinse, repeat.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 27, 2012 at 03:42 PM. )
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm pretty sure that those 15 examples where all culled from sources from about a 3 or 4 month period in 1970.
"pretty sure" is a pretty big assumption.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That scientists believed something outrageous that the media chose to highlight, but other scientists didn't and their views weren't given the same importance? I'm not sure how that hurts my claim. It's the same thing we've seen for the past 40 years. Life was gentler than many sources have been to the scientists who "deny" what is popular belief in order to foment fear. But that was one of just a few examples of predictions, backed by "science' which are claimed are supported by "scientists" that never came true, where there was an attempt to get people to do what the left already wants them to.
Is it not your claim that Life was suggesting that a consensus existed among scientists in order to foment fear? And now you're backing away from that given the full context of the quote?

If Life was gentler, why don't you show us the other examples of someone misleadingly suggesting non-existant scientific consensus that "in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution" and "by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half"?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
And Liberals aren't?
No. Nowhere near. Liberals are far more likely to alter their worldiews, lifestyles and habits in light of new information.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2012, 11:06 PM
 
Liberals yap a lot about the problem, yet personally do no more then the conservatives that ignore the problem. At the end of the day none of us really want to make the sacrifices to change anything.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 08:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Liberals yap a lot about the problem, yet personally do no more then the conservatives that ignore the problem. At the end of the day none of us really want to make the sacrifices to change anything.
I definitely think you're right about the talking; but the real issue is that most people wouldn't actually mind making the "sacrifices" involved (which are often not sacrifices at all, but just behaviour modification) - it's just that they don't have to, and thus are resistant to it.

In my view, the issue is identical to the root of the "debt crisis" in many countries around the world: the real problem is that no one has yet to stand up and simply force through the changes that need to be made, because everyone is sitting around bickering about exactly how to make them.

Just do it. Make the changes first, and then let everyone figure out how to make them work or whether they need to be subsequently amended. It's very similar to what the Harper government (haha) has done recently with the "retirement age" and employment benefits in Canada: we all know that the existing system probably needs to be changed, but everyone has a different opinion on how to do it. So, the Conservatives just went ahead and made the changes they saw fit. Now everyone will step back, assess what works and what won't work, and we'll get further tweaks as time goes on.

Environmental issues are very similar. It was a huge task to implement recycling programs over the past 20 years; once upon a time we all thought it was ludicrous to have to sort through our trash and figure out what was metal, plastic, paper, and so on. Now it's second nature - and most of us even wince when we see someone toss a recylable object in the "regular" trash bin. There are a ton of similar examples, from pollution controls to behavior controls and so on.

I think humans are generally lazy and resistant to change, but when it's implemented by force we're amazing at figuring out the best way to operate within the "new rules."

(I should clarify here that "by force" doesn't necessarily mean by direct government decree; it could be market control, external forces, you name it.)
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
It's not a "gotcha" in the slightest; you're just considering it such because it proves my point and disproves yours. It's a straightforward logic test with a clear right answer based on logical reasoning principles. It's hilarious that you simply chose not to answer instead of trying to back up your claim of how it's a "gotcha test."
No, what it means is that I do not have to participate in your game. How about you explain to me which affirmative answer of mine would prove you correct? Fun no? What seems most logical to me, knowing you, is a set of questions designed to lead the audience into the preferred supposition over the span of several, exhausting twisting and turning posts of redirection until you're satisfied that the reader has somehow forgotten all of the other points you failed to address adequately. It shouldn't surprise you that I'm not interested. If any of the answers to your logic quiz sound familiar from anything I've said, you'll have to accept that. If you can't, this means we're simply in irreconcilable disagreement. We're not going to have me hand-pick the argument I've made from the arguments you think I've made. i.e. quit patronizing me.

(As a general FYI, I spent several years writing logical reasoning questions, for money, for a standardized-test tutoring company here in North America (LSAT/GMAT tests). That work was based on my scores on these type of logical/critical questions on both the LSAT and GMAT; I had 1 of these questions incorrect on the LSAT and 1 incorrect on the GMAT. This particular company was more than happy to have me draft these particular sections of their tutoring materials. My "logic test" to you is by no means of LSAT-test quality, but the answer is still easily obtained by a quick read.
Why am I being repeatedly subjected to your resumé? This is another bumpkus appeal to authority. You're an internet personality. For all I know you sell used bubble gum downtown for spare change. Drafting logic quizzes and scoring well on compulsory examinations does not mean you're uniquely above the human fray of having a presupposition and interpreting evidence in support of that supposition.

If you do not feel that b) is the correct answer, please explain why that is the case, rather than simply choosing to claim it's not a valid test.)
I'll use excerpts of Zeebe's University press release posted by olePigeon:
Zeebe, an oceanographer at UH Mānoa, says: "We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon." The consequence is that other mechanisms must have considerably contributed to the warming 55 million years ago. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are unknown at present. "There are a few ideas what may have contributed to the additional warming. But I don‘t think we fully understand these events of intense and rapid global warming," says Zeebe.

Here's the real crux of the point:

If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated.
See any points in there from your logic quiz? Can you see what the actual evidence begs? You could read the above as "if the additional warming in the past was not a response to rising carbon dioxide, but as the evidence from the study suggests other mechanisms as considerable contributors; climate may not respond as once-believed due to rising carbon dioxide." I can see why a puzzle of logic might be more suitable to you, but really -- no puzzles necessary.

The real answer, of course, is that you'd prefer just to talk around the subject instead of answering the pointed questions. The rest of your post is simply more obfuscation - a bunch of general statements of fact which everyone already knows, followed by the very first conclusions that you initially made. That's not a reasoned argument; it's a throw-it-at-the-wall approach, which is simply the same old political tactic I called you on in the first place.
Right. I can see where a bunch of general statements of fact would be problematic for you here.

Really? Please show me where the study said that. My understanding is that we don't know where the CO2 output came from - just one of many things we don't know about the PETM world. The authors themselves certainly didn't make this claim:

From the same press release:
At that time, global surface temperatures rose by 5—9°C within a few thousand years. At nearly the same time, a large amount of carbon was released, probably from the dissociation of oceanic methane hydrates.

Again, how does challenging me here help establish your credibility? Eesh, and you wonder why I maintain sufficient brevity. You're looking for anything you can find at this point.

It's amazing that you choose to interpret their professed "uncertainty" solely as the infancy of the science, rather than the uncertainty of measuring an abrupt climate change 55 million years ago based solely on raw temperature and the amount of carbon prsent in the carbon cycle.
Because the science is in its infancy. That's why they're seeking events from 55 MYA to reconstruct what they believe may be happening today. Don't get mad at me for posting a study that castes doubt on the role of CO2 in climate change, I was asked for it.

I specifically did not say "to CO2". It's amazing that you would think so, considering I've spent the last 3 pages hammering on the point that the effects of CO2 are more or less calculable at this point. I said "to warming" - or, in other words, the sensitivity of our climate to warming:
You mean... the sensitivity of our climate to CO2 forcing right?

There's a big difference.
Yes there is. Other mechanisms are your huckleberry.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I definitely think you're right about the talking; but the real issue is that most people wouldn't actually mind making the "sacrifices" involved (which are often not sacrifices at all, but just behaviour modification) - it's just that they don't have to, and thus are resistant to it.

In my view, the issue is identical to the root of the "debt crisis" in many countries around the world: the real problem is that no one has yet to stand up and simply force through the changes that need to be made, because everyone is sitting around bickering about exactly how to make them.

Just do it. Make the changes first, and then let everyone figure out how to make them work or whether they need to be subsequently amended. It's very similar to what the Harper government (haha) has done recently with the "retirement age" and employment benefits in Canada: we all know that the existing system probably needs to be changed, but everyone has a different opinion on how to do it. So, the Conservatives just went ahead and made the changes they saw fit. Now everyone will step back, assess what works and what won't work, and we'll get further tweaks as time goes on.

Environmental issues are very similar. It was a huge task to implement recycling programs over the past 20 years; once upon a time we all thought it was ludicrous to have to sort through our trash and figure out what was metal, plastic, paper, and so on. Now it's second nature - and most of us even wince when we see someone toss a recylable object in the "regular" trash bin. There are a ton of similar examples, from pollution controls to behavior controls and so on.

I think humans are generally lazy and resistant to change, but when it's implemented by force we're amazing at figuring out the best way to operate within the "new rules."

(I should clarify here that "by force" doesn't necessarily mean by direct government decree; it could be market control, external forces, you name it.)
The recycling is a perfect example of flawed thinking from the environmental groups. A lot of the stuff that is recycled is not worth recycling and actually add to the pollution cycle. Stuff that had value to recycle was recycled by the market. Government intervention (force) was used to steal money from people to pay for a flawed service that was a feel good only service) Recycling paper for example, a biodegradable product that is best tossed out. In stead we spend fuel, time, energy and use chemicals in a industrial and toxic process to reuse the material. The sad thing is most paper is from Farmed trees in North America. The larger the paper demand the more trees are grown for the product. Use once paper is greatly more environmental then recycling paper. Plastics are a mix bag, some are worth recycling, others are not. Metal products have always been worth recycling.

As for sacrifices, to actually attain results that are measurable for the good of the planet or in economics to affect the debt, the sacrifices from every one is greater then most people are willing to make themselves rather hoping others make them instead. The market forces act counter to reduction of consumerism and pollution, I think it would take forced government involvement to make the changes we need. I can't see a market driven solution for both debt or pollution.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, what it means is that I do not have to participate in your game.
That's because the outcome of the study doesn't say what you claim it does. The authors don't think it says what you claim it does; other climate scientists don't think it says what you claim it does; when I read it, it doesn't say what you claim it does. It's only you, and whatever anti-AGW blog almost certainly written by someone who's not a climate scientist where you picked up that study.

You don't have to "participate in [my] game" because my game is premised on the study saying what it actually says. Since you disagree with the premise, and feel it's saying something other than what it's actually saying, then of course you're going to have a problem.

Here's the real crux of the point:

If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated.
See any points in there from your logic quiz?
Uhhhh...yes. Absolutely. Assuming the truthfulness of the statement that an X increase in CO2 results in a Y increase in temperature - the incorrect answer is still b), and a) and c) are still correct:
a) CO2 forcing is insufficient to explain the Y+5 temperature increase;
b) An X increase in atmospheric CO2 does not cause a Y increase in global temperatures;
c) Mechanism(s) other than CO2 forcing will be needed to explain the Y+5 temperature increase.
Finally, somehow you've introduced above the element of the additional warming being "a response to rising carbon dioxide". Where do you get this statement? Have the authors said the additional warming was a response to rising carbon dioxide? Where do you find this in the study? To my knowledge the authors specifically said they did not know where the additional warming came from. It's certainly possible that it might have been a trigger effect from rising earth temperatures; but I don't know how we could conclude that's actually the case.

Can you see what the actual evidence begs? You could read the above as "if the additional warming in the past was not a response to rising carbon dioxide, but as the evidence from the study suggests other mechanisms as considerable contributors;
Okay, yes...that's what I would say the study implies.
climate may not respond as once-believed due to rising carbon dioxide."
Ummmm...but only to such extent that it's more sensitive than we would've expected. You can't say that that the CO2 forcing calculations are incorrect, as you're attempting to do. The climate has still responded due to rising carbon dioxide because it warmed; according to the study, it would have warmed around 1-3 degrees based on the accepted calculation.

The other mechanisms would only have accounted for the remainder of the warming. How are you confusing this? I'm don't even...I mean...how does the presence of these other mechanisms somehow mean that CO2 forcing is incorrect?!?

Do you understand this? Let me repeat: CO2 forcing is a calculation. It's independent of any other number of calculations, all summed together which make up the planet's temperature change. If we increase atmospheric CO2 but decrease atmospheric water vapour and increase albedo, then the earth's temperature may actually lower, not rise. But based entirely on the CO2 component, if those other components were kept the same, then the temperature would increase by a certain amount.

I agree that my logic puzzle fails...if one rejects entirely the premise that CO2 acts as greehouse gas which has a calculable effect. That's basically what you seem to be doing here...? Are you saying "these other mechanisms may have accounted for all the warming, and CO2 may have not accounted for any of it? Please confirm.

Right. I can see where a bunch of general statements of fact would be problematic for you here.
Problematic? More like "useles", especially when at least some of them were entirely wrong (see below), and the rest were mostly utterances of fact to which one can only say "okay.....sure." The net effect seemed to be to state and then get me to agree to a bunch of things which weren't even in argument. Okay...??

Now, as to wrong:
Originally Posted by shortcuttomoncton
Really? Please show me where the study said that. My understanding is that we don't know where the CO2 output came from - just one of many things we don't know about the PETM world. The authors themselves certainly didn't make this claim:

From the same press release:
At that time, global surface temperatures rose by 5—9°C within a few thousand years. At nearly the same time, a large amount of carbon was released, probably from the dissociation of oceanic methane hydrates.
I repeated: the authors made no such conclusion as to the source of the carbon influx, and merely offered our best speculation as to what may have been the source. See underlined above. Also see the portion of the study which I quoted, and which you apparently simply ignored when answering me, with important modifiers underlined:
Originally Posted by The Study, as I already quoted:
The pattern of the carbon input scenario required by the model to match observations (Fig. 1a) seems to be consistent with carbon release from oceanic gas hydrate reservoirs. The pulsed input pattern could indicate carbon release from different ocean basins or depth horizons containing gas hydrate. The continued release could be explained by non-steady-state fluxes from marine gas hydrate systems following the initial dissociation of gas hydrate or fluxes from marine/terrestrial sedimentary reservoirs.
The above is a perfect example of your obfuscation tactic: you attempted to summarize the study (for some reason), and then introduce errors into your factual summary - apparently, because you hadn't read the study carefully enough in the first place, just as you still hadn't read it carefully enough when you replied to me above. And then the entire debate goes sideways because I have to play whack-a-mole trying to correct the mistakes which weren't even relevant to the argument to begin with.

Again, how does challenging me here help establish your credibility?
Perhaps because it shows that I recognize that the use of important modifiers like "probably", "seems", and "could" do not in any way mean that was the conclusion made by the authors?

And because you did make that claim, it shows that your reading comprehension suffers in comparison. So, there's that credibility.

Eesh, and you wonder why I maintain sufficient brevity. You're looking for anything you can find at this point.
You maintain "sufficient brevity" because you simply don't respond to any of the criticisms; you just re-state your argument, and then conclude that it is still correct. It's how politicians "win" on televised debates.

I could do the same, but unfortunately I stoop so low as to, you know, actually read the material you provide, quote portions of it, and correct you when you repeatedly summarize it incorrectly or draw conclusions which it does not support. So I guess you're certainly winning the "televised debate", if by which we mean the one where the casual listener who doesn't want to have any more than a surface talking-point knowledge of the subject (e.g. stupendousman) is the scorekeeper.

Because the science is in its infancy. That's why they're seeking events from 55 MYA to reconstruct what they believe may be happening today.
Uhhhh, what? If scientists found a 55 MYA dinosaur with AIDS or a million-year-old frozen mammoth with cancer, it would still be considered valuable evidence as to what these current diseases might hold for us. And those are for relatively specific disciplines which are quite advanced in com, not a whole-earth discipline. In what scientific discipline is additional relevant knowledge considered not to be helpful, I pray you?

Don't get mad at me for posting a study that castes doubt on the role of CO2 in climate change, I was asked for it.
...once again: I've already conclusively shown where this statement is incorrect. Yet you keep ignoring that argument, and repeating your incorrect conclusion.

I'm sure the casual viewers like stupendousman will come away from this feeling that this statement is the takeaway. And in my view, that's tragic - because it's completely wrong, and will remain wrong no matter how much you simply repeat it, over and over.

You mean... the sensitivity of our climate to CO2 forcing right?
As I've specifically pointed out in the post you quoted from me, the sensitivity of the climate to "warming" - i.e. yes, that includes CO2 forcing, but we already pretty much know what that is; it also includes other warming mechanisms which may be present, possibly as a result of the CO2 forcing effects (or possibly completely independent).

Yes there is. Other mechanisms are your huckleberry.
I don't know what you mean by huckleberry, but "other mechanisms" are what the study specifically references to explain the additional warming found. You're the one who provided the study, and now you're attacking its conclusions when I use it as my evidence? Hilarious.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
That's because the outcome of the study doesn't say what you claim it does. The authors don't think it says what you claim it does; other climate scientists don't think it says what you claim it does; when I read it, it doesn't say what you claim it does. It's only you, and whatever anti-AGW blog almost certainly written by someone who's not a climate scientist where you picked up that study.
I didn't pick this up from an anti-AGW blog, this is why you're struggling with it. The study says exactly what I've claimed, is supported by the author's own statements in the conclusion of the study, and reaffirmed again in the press release.

You don't have to "participate in [my] game" because my game is premised on the study saying what it actually says. Since you disagree with the premise, and feel it's saying something other than what it's actually saying, then of course you're going to have a problem.
I don't disagree with the premise of the study at all. I think Zeebe's study has produced some compelling evidence and was the perfect citation to try and shirk someone, anyone from Steps 1-3 on this issue.

Uhhhh...yes. Absolutely. Assuming the truthfulness of the statement that an X increase in CO2 results in a Y increase in temperature - the incorrect answer is still b), and a) and c) are still correct:
So... at least one of your answers is correct then.

Finally, somehow you've introduced above the element of the additional warming being "a response to rising carbon dioxide". Where do you get this statement? Have the authors said the additional warming was a response to rising carbon dioxide? Where do you find this in the study? To my knowledge the authors specifically said they did not know where the additional warming came from. It's certainly possible that it might have been a trigger effect from rising earth temperatures; but I don't know how we could conclude that's actually the case.

I repeated: the authors made no such conclusion as to the source of the carbon influx, and merely offered our best speculation as to what may have been the source. See underlined above. Also see the portion of the study which I quoted, and which you apparently simply ignored when answering me, with important modifiers underlined:

The above is a perfect example of your obfuscation tactic: you attempted to summarize the study (for some reason), and then introduce errors into your factual summary - apparently, because you hadn't read the study carefully enough in the first place, just as you still hadn't read it carefully enough when you replied to me above. And then the entire debate goes sideways because I have to play whack-a-mole trying to correct the mistakes which weren't even relevant to the argument to begin with.


Perhaps because it shows that I recognize that the use of important modifiers like "probably", "seems", and "could" do not in any way mean that was the conclusion made by the authors?
Remember when you told me that the study suggested climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing would actually be greater? The statement I cited illustrates the same degree of uncertainty you're now underlining. When I cite; "If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated.", I'm getting it from the author of the study. Stick to a standard or premise and follow through with it, don't throw it away and begin redirecting when your own criteria becomes problematic for you. For whatever reason the word "probably" becomes possibly to you and "if" becomes is. Take your pick man.

Okay, yes...that's what I would say the study implies.
Ummmm...but only to such extent that it's more sensitive than we would've expected.
Not only anything. You mean more sensitive to any of its own natural phenomena known and unknown. In fact, reducing the role of CO2 in climate change? I could pose this as a logic puzzle if it makes it easier for you to conceive.

You can't say that that the CO2 forcing calculations are incorrect, as you're attempting to do. The climate has still responded due to rising carbon dioxide because it warmed; according to the study, it would have warmed around 1-3 degrees based on the accepted calculation.
Okay... finally we're getting somewhere. 1 degree of a total possible 9 leaves the possibility of a remaining 8 of 9 due to other mechanisms. But is that the primary sentiment expressed by your establishment consensus on global warming greg; that 1 of 10% of warming may be due to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities and the remaining 90% may be due to natural variability?

The other mechanisms would only have accounted for the remainder of the warming. How are you confusing this? I'm don't even...I mean...how does the presence of these other mechanisms somehow mean that CO2 forcing is incorrect?!?
Because I maintain the other mechanisms always have been and will remain the dominant factor in global climate change, not CO2. The study reinforces the idea that CO2 alone is insufficient to explain global climate change. You may think this is obvious, but in light of the notion that mankind is contributing to, what is the statement; "all or most of the recent warming" it seems kind of silly really. First, mankind is not the primary producer of CO2; second, CO2 does not have the impact on climate change once thought as evidenced by this study (of course I understand the no-lose situation you think you've found in my example, but there's absolutely zero reason why that would be the only logical conclusion); and third, as the discipline progresses, it will identify and develop more effective means of measuring these other mechanisms. To give them short-shrift as you and others continue to do for political fodder is certainly not indicative of a genuine interest in science, particularly when they may comprise the lion's share of climate change.

Do you understand this? Let me repeat: CO2 forcing is a calculation. It's independent of any other number of calculations, all summed together which make up the planet's temperature change. If we increase atmospheric CO2 but decrease atmospheric water vapour and increase albedo, then the earth's temperature may actually lower, not rise. But based entirely on the CO2 component, if those other components were kept the same, then the temperature would increase by a certain amount.
Yes shortcut, I understand this. Do you understand how myopic your interpretation of the evidence is? Those other components are not the same and they are even less understood while they do appear to account for potentially most of the warming. That's what we know. These are the general facts that seem to grate on the nerves of the more passionate among us.

I agree that my logic puzzle fails...if one rejects entirely the premise that CO2 acts as greehouse gas which has a calculable effect. That's basically what you seem to be doing here...? Are you saying "these other mechanisms may have accounted for all the warming, and CO2 may have not accounted for any of it? Please confirm.
Your logic puzzle fails because it was not crafted in the interest of logic. I gave you the most basic form of it within Zeebe's statement of if/then uncertainty and you missed it entirely in the silly gotcha game.

Problematic? More like "useles", especially when at least some of them were entirely wrong (see below), and the rest were mostly utterances of fact to which one can only say "okay.....sure." The net effect seemed to be to state and then get me to agree to a bunch of things which weren't even in argument. Okay...??
That's where you're wrong. I know you're not going to agree with me. It's possible you can't. I don't need you to agree to a single thing I've said. When I cite very basic, non-contentious points it's not to serve a desire to be agreeable, it is because those are what we know. They are inarguable. That's the premise I'm working from. When this happens in the homosexual threads, I'm a homophobe; now I guess I'm a zealophobe

And because you did make that claim, it shows that your reading comprehension suffers in comparison. So, there's that credibility.

You maintain "sufficient brevity" because you simply don't respond to any of the criticisms; you just re-state your argument, and then conclude that it is still correct. It's how politicians "win" on televised debates.
You mean it makes you angry when I don't play your gotcha games? Frankly, I think your material would've made more worthy television and if that were the goal, I'd recommend you at least start with a blog.

I could do the same, but unfortunately I stoop so low as to, you know, actually read the material you provide, quote portions of it, and correct you when you repeatedly summarize it incorrectly or draw conclusions which it does not support. So I guess you're certainly winning the "televised debate", if by which we mean the one where the casual listener who doesn't want to have any more than a surface talking-point knowledge of the subject (e.g. stupendousman) is the scorekeeper.
I'm not stooping low. I'm just offending your sensitivities with facts. See? It's you, not me. Here I might've been called a warming denier or worse, a climate change denier, but ever since I began calling them natural climate change deniers; they seemed to have gotten the point. I'm not summarizing it incorrectly at all. The study and its evidence speaks for itself. I'm neither defending the study nor attacking the study and I also realize this is frustrating for you, but I don't think it's important to "pick a side". I'm not trying to "win" anything. In fact, (and I know I've said this before, but now I mean it) I'll give you the last word. Not that I'm the purveyor of words of course, but simply that I won't respond. Rip me up man. Tear me a new one. You win.

Uhhhh, what? If scientists found a 55 MYA dinosaur with AIDS or a million-year-old frozen mammoth with cancer, it would still be considered valuable evidence as to what these current diseases might hold for us. And those are for relatively specific disciplines which are quite advanced in com, not a whole-earth discipline. In what scientific discipline is additional relevant knowledge considered not to be helpful, I pray you?
Seems like a waste of time if they're just going to give whatever evidence this period provides the short-shrift to maintain a presupposition as you have done.

...once again: I've already conclusively shown where this statement is incorrect. Yet you keep ignoring that argument, and repeating your incorrect conclusion.
I disagree and if this were true, you've not demonstrated why.

I'm sure the casual viewers like stupendousman will come away from this feeling that this statement is the takeaway. And in my view, that's tragic - because it's completely wrong, and will remain wrong no matter how much you simply repeat it, over and over.
I think zealotry is tragic to science. That's all I want people to get out of this discussion.

As I've specifically pointed out in the post you quoted from me, the sensitivity of the climate to "warming" - i.e. yes, that includes CO2 forcing, but we already pretty much know what that is; it also includes other warming mechanisms which may be present, possibly as a result of the CO2 forcing effects (or possibly completely independent).
Right. Why give their potentially dominant role in climate change the short-shrift on any discussion of global climate?
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Remember when you told me that the study suggested climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing would actually be greater? The statement I cited illustrates the same degree of uncertainty you're now underlining. When I cite; "If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated.", I'm getting it from the author of the study. Stick to a standard or premise and follow through with it, don't throw it away and begin redirecting when your own criteria becomes problematic for you. For whatever reason the word "probably" becomes possibly to you and "if" becomes is. Take your pick man.
I have no idea what you mean here. Why wouldn't the authors use "if" and "then", and how does it relate to what I was saying? We have no data to say that the additional warming was a response to rising CO2, but our models do indicate that there's a feedback effect. It may have been; it also may have been a convergence of independent factors. The authors would have to use "if and then", because there's no way to prove either way.

What are you talking about here? I don't understand.

Not only anything. You mean more sensitive to any of its own natural phenomena known and unknown. In fact, reducing the role of CO2 in climate change? I could pose this as a logic puzzle if it makes it easier for you to conceive.
I really wish you would. Your logic now is all over the place. Now you're not claiming CO2 forcing is incorrect; you're claiming its role in climate change has been reduced?

But...it's role remains the same. It's the same role we've been calculating and modelling over the past couple decades. Now you've raised the possibility that there may be additional climate change above and beyond that caused by CO2.......so you can call it a reduced role only based on the total climate change effect if you like, sure. But the amount of CO2 forcing hasn't changed - it's still the same.

Okay... finally we're getting somewhere. 1 degree of a total possible 9 leaves the possibility of a remaining 8 of 9 due to other mechanisms. But is that the primary sentiment expressed by your establishment consensus on global warming greg; that 1 of 10% of warming may be due to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities and the remaining 90% may be due to natural variability?
Sooooooooo....based on this and your last statement......since today's warming estimates are largely based on CO2 forcing calculations........you're now saying that the actual warming will likely be much larger than our current estimates? Then why did you disagree with me when I pointed this very same thing out - that warming sensitivity may be higher than what we currently predict?

Really? This is where we've ended up? You're saying that the warming calculations provided by the IPCC are probably too low by 10%?

Wow. Stupendousman is gonna have a field day with you and your catastrophic predictions.

Because I maintain the other mechanisms always have been and will remain the dominant factor in global climate change, not CO2. The study reinforces the idea that CO2 alone is insufficient to explain global climate change.


No. No, it doesn't. It says that CO2 has an accepted warming effect, but in actual fact there may be other warming factors - just as there may be other stronger cooling factors (such as aerosols, which volcanos and the 70s may possibly attest to.

What about this don't you understand? CO2 has a calculated effect. It will continue to have that effect. Other factors may cause additional warming or cooling, but the effect of CO2 is a calculable one of warming.


Your logic puzzle fails because it was not crafted in the interest of logic. I gave you the most basic form of it within Zeebe's statement of if/then uncertainty and you missed it entirely in the silly gotcha game.
I still don't know what you mean by this. Please explain.

I'm not stooping low. I'm just offending your sensitivities with facts. See? It's you, not me. Here I might've been called a warming denier or worse, a climate change denier, but ever since I began calling them natural climate change deniers; they seemed to have gotten the point. I'm not summarizing it incorrectly at all. The study and its evidence speaks for itself.
Ahhhh yes. You're not doing any of those things; you're just disagreeing with what the authors of the study and climate scientists took away from it.


Right. Why give their potentially dominant role in climate change the short-shrift on any discussion of global climate?
How are they given the "short shrift"? Other dominant roles are widely discussed and debated.

The issue is those other dominant roles haven't yet shown to be in play. That's why CO2 is the focus - because it's the only major warming factor we can currently identify.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 29, 2012 at 08:30 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No. Nowhere near. Liberals are far more likely to alter their worldiews, lifestyles and habits in light of new information.
This thread proves opposite.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
"pretty sure" is a pretty big assumption.
Even the links you provide state that they are all from 1970. Do you have information that contradicts this?

Is it not your claim that Life was suggesting that a consensus existed among scientists in order to foment fear? And now you're backing away from that given the full context of the quote?
No. Life was suggesting generically that "scientists" believe something, in an attempt to foment fear - likely to act in a more liberal fashion when it came to environmental issues. I provided other quotes as well that showed much stronger "consensus" claims concerning false predictions to show the pattern of "scientists" or other experts being used to foist outrageous environmental or societal predictions in order to compel the populace to act in a manner that liberals where already predisposed to.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 08:09 AM
 
You seem to have real trouble with the concept of "consensus", don't you.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I provided other quotes as well that showed much stronger "consensus" claims concerning false predictions to show the pattern of "scientists" or other experts being used to foist outrageous environmental or societal predictions in order to compel the populace to act in a manner that liberals where already predisposed to.
Which other quotes were those? Of the 1970's quotes, the Life quote is the only one that I see that even comes *close* to implying a consensus (which I contend could be read either way, depending on how you want to spin it).
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 09:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
You seem to have real trouble with the concept of "consensus", don't you.
No.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Which other quotes were those? Of the 1970's quotes, the Life quote is the only one that I see that even comes *close* to implying a consensus (which I contend could be read either way, depending on how you want to spin it).
Well, I'm pretty sure that stating that experts "agree almost unanimously " in regards to an outrageous prediction implies consensus, and that's in one of the quotes. As well, when the number of "scientists" is not enumerated, it leaves the impression that experts in the field have came to the same conclusion, implying consensus. Just because there are scientists who disagree, that wouldn't mean that there is no "consensus" if those scientist's beliefs are given less importance or credence. See the global warming debate for evidence. Plenty of scientists disagree - though consensus is still claimed.

Again..this is just a handful of quotes from a short time period, which took me 2 seconds to find via Google. I'm pretty sure given the evidence that if it were really worth my time (it isn't, since I've been alive over the past 40 years and remember all the crazy claims made in the name of "science - I don't need proof for myself, I've experienced it) there are more to be found. You can continue to try to pick over and parse the sentences if you choose, as it's clear that no amount of evidence is going to convince you.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Well, I'm pretty sure that stating that experts "agree almost unanimously " in regards to an outrageous prediction implies consensus, and that's in one of the quotes. As well, when the number of "scientists" is not enumerated, it leaves the impression that experts in the field have came to the same conclusion, implying consensus. Just because there are scientists who disagree, that wouldn't mean that there is no "consensus" if those scientist's beliefs are given less importance or credence. See the global warming debate for evidence. Plenty of scientists disagree - though consensus is still claimed.
Wow. Just...wow. You really don't understand what it means to have a "scientific consensus".

The fact that you take a quote from a Life magazine article to conclude that there was a scientific consensus? Absolutely, amazingly, astonishingly, wrong.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You can continue to try to pick over and parse the sentences if you choose, as it's clear that no amount of evidence is going to convince you.
A beautiful display of reeking hyprocrisy.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Wow. Just...wow. You really don't understand what it means to have a "scientific consensus".
Wow. Just..wow. You're on an internet forum and have been for quite awhile, and STILL don't know how debate works. It's no wonder you have so much trouble that people like ebuddy have to spell things out to you like you would a child, and yet you still can't get it.

The fact that you take a quote from a Life magazine article to conclude that there was a scientific consensus? Absolutely, amazingly, astonishingly, wrong.
The fact that you would claim that's what I did makes it all too apparent that either you aren't paying attention, or suffer from some kind of learning impairment.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
A beautiful display of reeking hyprocrisy.
I've witnessed over 40 years of evidence. I'm convinced. After almost 20 years of being told that if drastic measures weren't taken I'd be roasting in my own juices by now, I can see that maybe those who claim to know so much DON'T. This really isn't all that complicated.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
This thread proves opposite.
It does? Does that mean you changed yours? I haven't been reading all of it.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It does? Does that mean you changed yours? I haven't been reading all of it.
What am I supposed to be convinced of, which I disagree with? That we should take seriously claims that if we don't act based on how some scientists have interpreted data, that there is certain doom? I've not seen any data which would lead a rational person to believe that scientists have ever made successful predictions in regards to climate, as far as how it would effect people in the future. They've been trying for at least 40 years, and it never seems to work out. I'd be happy to change my mind, but like I said, I've observed this personally and seen no proof the contrary.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 12:11 PM
 
I'll take that as a no then.

I'm having trouble with this "Scientists claim we are doomed if we don't...." stuff. This sounds more like media spin on scientific recommendations to me. The scientific recommendations I suspect are more along the lines of "This appears to be happening.... so if we cut down on ....... then we should reduce the chance of ....... but even if we don't, nothing bad will happen so we might as well try it."

Which of course we all know would instantly translate into " Lefty scientists claim world to end tomorrow if abortion not state funded and solar powered. All Obama's fault." within seconds of being picked up by Fox News.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 07:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I have no idea what you mean here. Why wouldn't the authors use "if" and "then", and how does it relate to what I was saying? We have no data to say that the additional warming was a response to rising CO2, but our models do indicate that there's a feedback effect. It may have been; it also may have been a convergence of independent factors. The authors would have to use "if and then", because there's no way to prove either way.

What are you talking about here? I don't understand.
The study states "probably dissociated oceanic methane hydrates" and you want to pick this apart, claim the study never suggested oceanic methane hydrates, etc... but when the study states; "If the additional warming is caused by CO2, then..." you're all up in arms that it is so. What's your standard? If the study says probably, it means we don't know, but when the study expresses room for doubt, there's no doubt at all? And you say I'm all over the place.

I really wish you would. Your logic now is all over the place. Now you're not claiming CO2 forcing is incorrect; you're claiming its role in climate change has been reduced?
Because it clearly has, from the study.

But...it's role remains the same. It's the same role we've been calculating and modelling over the past couple decades.
Bzzzt! No. The study specifically states that by employing the calculations as we have them today, they're missing a great deal of carbon. They were surprised by these findings. They were expecting to use our current calculations and modeling on the PETM period to account for the apparent warming event except, the calculations could not account for the warming.

Now you've raised the possibility that there may be additional climate change above and beyond that caused by CO2.......so you can call it a reduced role only based on the total climate change effect if you like, sure. But the amount of CO2 forcing hasn't changed - it's still the same.
wrong. The CO2 forcing calculations came up decidedly short. These calculations could not account for the 5-9 degree increase in temperature. They may account for the minority of warming while other mechanisms may account for the majority of warming. That's what the study says, very simply. This is in stark contrast to the alarmist conclusions of your establishment consensus.

Sooooooooo....based on this and your last statement......since today's warming estimates are largely based on CO2 forcing calculations
................................... inadequate ones apparently..................................
you're now saying that the actual warming will likely be much larger than our current estimates?
No; that CO2 accounts for less of it than our current calculations would've supposed.

Then why did you disagree with me when I pointed this very same thing out - that warming sensitivity may be higher than what we currently predict?
Because you keep saying warming sensitivity as if this must mean "warming sensitivity to CO2" when it could be warming sensitivity to any of the natural phenomena that drives climate change just as it says in the study. There's no reason "probably" should mean maybe not and "if" should mean is.

Really? This is where we've ended up? You're saying that the warming calculations provided by the IPCC are probably too low by 10%?
No. I'm saying what you found inconvenient enough to hack out of my last post which is why I'm now having to repeat myself. If man accounts for a minority percentage of CO2 output and that CO2 output is found to be a possible, minority driver of climate change in lieu of other mechanisms as found in this study; this evidence stands in direct conflict with those who suppose man is the primary driver of climate change.

Wow. Stupendousman is gonna have a field day with you and your catastrophic predictions.
Silliness.

An argument falling apart into emoticons.

No. No, it doesn't. It says that CO2 has an accepted warming effect...
... that is insufficient to explain a warming event...
but in actual fact there may be other warming factors - just as there may be other stronger cooling factors (such as aerosols, which volcanos and the 70s may possibly attest to.
Of course there are other drivers of climate change, I maintain those other factors comprise the majority of climate change. This study bolsters the plausibility of my argument.

What about this don't you understand? CO2 has a calculated effect.
... that could not account for the apparent warming of the PETM.

It will continue to have that effect. Other factors may cause additional warming or cooling, but the effect of CO2 is a calculable one of warming.
It may be calculable, but our current calculations are insufficient to explain the warming event of their choosing. Remember, there were many warming and cooling events, this one was chosen due to evidence of rising CO2 somewhat concurrent with the warming event. They sought this period to employ today's understanding of the role of CO2 in climate change (you know, the infallible CO2 calculations you're having a hard time understanding) and... the calculations came up well short as they could not account for the warming event.

I still don't know what you mean by this. Please explain.
It's probably somewhere in the bits of mine you hacked out. Read again and if you're still lost, I'll see what I can do.

Ahhhh yes. You're not doing any of those things; you're just disagreeing with what the authors of the study and climate scientists took away from it.
No in fact, I've done nothing, but quote exactly what their take-away was. You're focused on some parts of it and I'm focused on other parts of it, but you see -- the study doesn't have to say Al Gore is a poopy-butt stinky face! does it?

How are they given the "short shrift"? Other dominant roles are widely discussed and debated.
Unfortunately, according to you the study was exclusively about CO2 though I'm glad you're acknowledging the other, dominant roles.

The issue is those other dominant roles haven't yet shown to be in play. That's why CO2 is the focus - because it's the only major warming factor we can currently identify.
We're working on identifying the other mechanisms, they have been supposed again by Svensmark and others, but they are not well understood. A science in its infancy. I see no reason for alarmism given the apparent infancy of the discipline. Just because that's all we know doesn't mean that's all there is and with studies like the ones I've cited, we're beginning to identify just how profound those other mechanisms can be. One thing's for sure though, the future is uncertain. I wish some of our more ardent zealots would give this uncertainty a little more credence and sobriety. Science will do what it does best as long as the anxious don't continue trying to manipulate it.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
it's clear that no amount of evidence is going to convince you.
You've got a statement from a university professor saying "demographers agree almost unanimously" and a vague statement from Life referring to a unquantified number of scientists while noting that "others disagree". This is hardly "no amount of evidence" to bolster your claim that media is telling us there is consensus when there really isn't (one of your examples, the professor, isn't even from the media).

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again..this is just a handful of quotes from a short time period, which took me 2 seconds to find via Google. I'm pretty sure given the evidence that if it were really worth my time (it isn't, since I've been alive over the past 40 years and remember all the crazy claims made in the name of "science - I don't need proof for myself, I've experienced it) there are more to be found.
You realize that you're doing the same thing here that you're accusing the media of doing? You're taking a handful of weak examples and are trying to convince us that these are representative of a much larger collection, likely with better examples since the first were so easy to obtain (also, there's your 40 years of memories!) ... without doing any of the research to back that claim up.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; May 30, 2012 at 08:36 AM. )
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The study states "probably dissociated oceanic methane hydrates" and you want to pick this apart, claim the study never suggested oceanic methane hydrates, etc... but when the study states; "If the additional warming is caused by CO2, then..." you're all up in arms that it is so. What's your standard? If the study says probably, it means we don't know, but when the study expresses room for doubt, there's no doubt at all? And you say I'm all over the place.
  1. First off, where does the study say "If the additional warming is caused by CO2, then..."? To be clear, you originally stated:
    Originally Posted by ebuddy
    When I cite; "If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated."
    You specifically say that you're citing the study. I just took your word for it before this point, but having now gone to check the context of the quote, I simply can't find this wording at all. If you're actually paraphrasing, not citing, then please point out for me the sentence which you are paraphrasing.

  2. The study talks about the warming in addition to direct CO2 forcing. I'm absolutely gobsmacked that you've missed this point: the warming is in addition to CO2 forcing: "At the accepted equilibrium climate sensitivities of 1.5-4.5 C warming per doubling of CO2 (ref. 1), our calculated 1.7-fold increase in CO2 would at most have caused 3.5 C warming during the PETM main phase (Fig. 4). This constitutes an enigma because proxy records globally indicate surface warming by 5.9 C (refs 5 9). If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then feedbacks and/or forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming. The origin of this additional warming is unknown at present."
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 30, 2012 at 10:58 AM. )
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
But...it's role remains the same. It's the same role we've been calculating and modelling over the past couple decades.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Bzzzt! No. The study specifically states that by employing the calculations as we have them today, they're missing a great deal of carbon. They were surprised by these findings. They were expecting to use our current calculations and modeling on the PETM period to account for the apparent warming event except, the calculations could not account for the warming.
Errr...you're completely wrong. The calculations could only account for the part of the warming which would be a result of the increase in carbon found:
Originally Posted by the study
We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
See also, my quote from the study in my previous post. Wow. Once again, more irrefutable proof that you haven't actually taken the time to read the study you actually provided as evidence.



Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
Now you've raised the possibility that there may be additional climate change above and beyond that caused by CO2.......so you can call it a reduced role only based on the total climate change effect if you like, sure. But the amount of CO2 forcing hasn't changed - it's still the same.
Originally Posted by ebuddy
wrong. The CO2 forcing calculations came up decidedly short. These calculations could not account for the 5-9 degree increase in temperature. They may account for the minority of warming while other mechanisms may account for the majority of warming.
You are completely wrong again. The direct CO2 forcing has not changed in the slightest. It's an independent calculation, ebuddy: the direct CO2 forcing is a (relatively) known constant, while the "other unknown processes" are variables.


Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
you're now saying that the actual warming will likely be much larger than our current estimates?
Originally Posted by ebuddy
No; that CO2 accounts for less of it than our current calculations would've supposed.
*tears out hair*

ebuddy: our current estimates are based on the direct CO2 forcing calculation which was shown to be "too low" for the PETM period. Please think about this. Stop. Think.
Direct CO2 forcing today: explains our current observed climate warming.
Direct CO2 forcing in PETM: does not explain observed climate warming; something else was present that caused additional warming. That something is not (yet) present today, because otherwise we'd be warming more than our direct CO2 forcing calculations predict. We are not; we're completely in line with those predictions.


It's maddening to me that you don't understand this simple point. You've missed the crux of this entire study: the calculations that we use today to predict and monitor our ongoing climate change science, which currently accurately mirror our observed warming, and are largely believed to be correct by all climate scientists, are the very calculations used by Zeebe in this study to "explain" only a ~3.5 C increase in the observed warming. The rest of the warming observed in the PETM was considered by the authors of the study to be "in addition" to direct CO2 forcing.


Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
Then why did you disagree with me when I pointed this very same thing out - that warming sensitivity may be higher than what we currently predict?
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Because you keep saying warming sensitivity as if this must mean "warming sensitivity to CO2" when it could be warming sensitivity to any of the natural phenomena that drives climate change just as it says in the study.
Holy crap. I've specifically and repeatedly said I mean "sensitivity to warming", not "sensitivity to CO2". Let me quote myself again, shall I?
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
I specifically did not say "to CO2". It's amazing that you would think so, considering I've spent the last 3 pages hammering on the point that the effects of CO2 are more or less calculable at this point. I said "to warming" - or, in other words, the sensitivity of our climate to warming:
This is the second or third time I've repeated this, and you continue to insist I've said something which I repeatedly have to point out I did not say? What the **** kind of game are you trying to play, ebuddy? It's time to stop with this sort of stupid bullshit and start actually reading the posts to which you're responding.


If man accounts for a minority percentage of CO2 output and that CO2 output is found to be a possible, minority driver of climate change in lieu of other mechanisms as found in this study; this evidence stands in direct conflict with those who suppose man is the primary driver of climate change.
I've already specifically answered this: we know there are other dominant drivers of climate change. We don't know which of those may have been present during the PETM - we don't have that evidence.

But we do know which of them are present now. And CO2 is currently the only dominant driver we have yet been able to identify - there are certainly others present, and they certain have a measurable affect, but we have not been able to correlate (and therefore, causate) them to our current warming climate.


Of course there are other drivers of climate change, I maintain those other factors comprise the majority of climate change. This study bolsters the plausibility of my argument.
Okay, I can run with this. What "other drivers" then? Please detail what they may be.


No in fact, I've done nothing, but quote exactly what their take-away was. You're focused on some parts of it and I'm focused on other parts of it,
Well other than citing statements which don't actually seem to exist, the only thing I can see you're "focused on" is failing to realize that the CO2 forcing calculations that explain our current warming in the 21st century, were woefully short in explaining them in the PETM. Meaning...you know......yeah.....not what you've been saying for the past few pages.


We're working on identifying the other mechanisms, they have been supposed again by Svensmark and others, but they are not well understood. A science in its infancy.
You keep mentioning Svensmark. Lots of interesting stuff going on with solar and/or cosmic radiation, and lots of information that might explain past climate changes...but I'm not aware that any of it explains the current warming trend that we're experiencing right now.


I see no reason for alarmism given the apparent infancy of the discipline. Just because that's all we know doesn't mean that's all there is and with studies like the ones I've cited, we're beginning to identify just how profound those other mechanisms can be.
The amazing part of it is that I actually wonder if you believe your blah-blah "we're beginning to identify...!" BS. The fact is that we've identified so many other "profound mechanisms" for climate change that it isn't even funny - many of them "more profound" than atmospheric CO2. The fact that you seem to think that any mechanism other than CO2 is a huge revelation or something is startling.

The key is which of those mechanisms we have been able to rule out in regards to our current warming trend. And the answer is "most of them" - and CO2 is still the primary driver out of what's left.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 30, 2012 at 11:03 AM. )
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
  1. First off, where does the study say "If the additional warming is caused by CO2, then..."? To be clear, you originally stated: You specifically say that you're citing the study. I just took your word for it before this point, but having now gone to check the context of the quote, I simply can't find this wording at all. If you're actually paraphrasing, not citing, then please point out for me the sentence which you are paraphrasing.
Found it: this quote is from the press release, not the study.

Back to your quote:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
The study states "probably dissociated oceanic methane hydrates" and you want to pick this apart, claim the study never suggested oceanic methane hydrates, etc... but when the study states; "If the additional warming is caused by CO2, then..." you're all up in arms that it is so.
Errr...what? The quote is concerning the additional warming: the warming observed "in addition to" the warming that would have occurred from direct CO2 forcing.

The study specifically states that it doesn't know the mechanism behind this additional warming. It could have been caused by some unknown response to rising CO2 levels; it could have been caused by some mechanism that is total independent of CO2, such as the solar/cosmic ray theory that you have brought up.


And, now that I've found your original post quoting the press release, I'd like to point out something hilarious:
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Here's the real crux of the point:

If the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide, then also future warming could be much stronger than anticipated.
See any points in there from your logic quiz? Can you see what the actual evidence begs? You could read the above as "if the additional warming in the past was not a response to rising carbon dioxide, but as the evidence from the study suggests other mechanisms as considerable contributors; climate may not respond as once-believed due to rising carbon dioxide."


No. No, you can't. That's a basic reading comprehension error and logic error on your part.
if the additional warming in the past was a response to rising carbon dioxide
The key word is "additional": the warming that is in addition to the warming from direct CO2 forcing. After all, the warming caused by direct CO2 forcing is specifically calculated and acknowledged in the study, as I showed above.

Therefore no, you absolutely cannot make this statement:
You could read the above as "if the additional warming in the past was not a response to rising carbon dioxide, [then] climate may not respond as once-believed due to rising carbon dioxide."
...because if the additional warming was not a response to rising carbon dioxide, then the additional warming was caused by a mechanism that is independent of rising CO2. Therefore it has nothing to do with the climatic response to rising CO2; other independent factors accounted for the rest of the warming.

Oh boy. Embarrassing for you, missing that obvious wording and then compounding it by trying to come up with your own logic statement that was fundamentally flawed from the start. Perhaps if you'd bothered to read the study instead of trying to base your argument off of press releases, you wouldn't make such basic errors?

I can see why a puzzle of logic might be more suitable to you, but really -- no puzzles necessary.
Indeed. Step 1 of any logic puzzle is "read the question slowly and carefully".

You can Google the actual study. Let's start you there.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 02:03 PM
 
This thread is an epic testament to the dangers of deductive reasoning and its confusion with scientific methods.

Originally Posted by Study
We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon." The consequence is that other mechanisms must have considerably contributed to the warming 55 million years ago. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are unknown at present.
/AGW
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
*snort*
At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5◦ C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.
/your argument

#youshouldgetwithebuddyandtakeareadingclass

Seriously. The authors of the study come straight out and acknowledge the accepted affect of direct CO2 forcing.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
*snort*

/your argument

#youshouldgetwithebuddyandtakeareadingclass

Seriously. The authors of the study come straight out and acknowledge the accepted affect of direct CO2 forcing.
Or, the "accepted" values are wrong. What makes you assume the authors are acknowledging accepted values as fact? Where is that said? They're saying that using accepted values produces an incorrect result.

In other words, the math doesn't add up, and we can't explain why. Using the current numbers that we have cannot explain the warming. Which can mean that

a) "Accepted values" are incorrect
b) Other mechanisms account for the majority of the warming.

How does this support AGW, again?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 04:10 PM
 
Hahaha...like a lamb to the slaughter.

Oh, you're absolutely, 100% right there. That is absolutely the other choice. I'm glad you brought it up, actually.

And, in a shocking turn of events for me ( ), there is an entire smorgasbord of scientific papers on the effect of CO2 forcing and the calculation thereof. There are also many studies which compare atmospheric CO2 concentration to abrupt climate changes during earth's history (similar to the study you have quoted, in which case it was the PETM - a time period about which we know comparatively little, since it was so long ago).

Would you like to do a little Wikipedia research first, perhaps? May a Google search of your own? Or would you prefer that you be supplied with some of the many, many papers on this subject?

I ask because I'm well aware that you're not going to read them anyway; you haven't even read the study that you just quoted me. Not only will you not read them, my providing you those studies will not change your mind one iota on this subject. All the work it will take me to search for and identify these studies will be entirely wasted. Can we at least agree on that up front?

But, you know...I just had to have more of what ebuddy calls "gotcha!" fun, at your expense.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Hahaha...like a lamb to the slaughter.

Oh, you're absolutely, 100% right there. That is absolutely the other choice. I'm glad you brought it up, actually.

And, in a shocking turn of events for me ( ), there is an entire smorgasbord of scientific papers on the effect of CO2 forcing and the calculation thereof. There are also many studies which compare atmospheric CO2 concentration to abrupt climate changes during earth's history (similar to the study you have quoted, in which case it was the PETM - a time period about which we know comparatively little, since it was so long ago).

Would you like to do a little Wikipedia research first, perhaps? May a Google search of your own? Or would you prefer that you be supplied with some of the many, many papers on this subject?

I ask because I'm well aware that you're not going to read them anyway; you haven't even read the study that you just quoted me. Not only will you not read them, my providing you those studies will not change your mind one iota on this subject. All the work it will take me to search for and identify these studies will be entirely wasted. Can we at least agree on that up front?

But, you know...I just had to have more of what ebuddy calls "gotcha!" fun, at your expense.
I'm not sure I see any arguments in there. Just a jab at me, a jab at ebuddy, and some nonsense in between about other studies combined with insults to my intelligence.

What exactly, will these studies tell us in relation to the study at hand? Be mindful not to get off topic, and make sure you relate your conclusions to the question posed.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 05:14 PM
 
You're the one who set up the "a) or b)" answer scenario.

I just told you: it ain't a). Are you going to go look up why? See: my post you just quoted.

Ergo: the answer is b). Which is the conclusion reached by...you know...the study.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You've got a statement from a university professor saying "demographers agree almost unanimously" and a vague statement from Life referring to a unquantified number of scientists while noting that "others disagree". This is hardly "no amount of evidence" to bolster your claim that media is telling us there is consensus when there really isn't (one of your examples, the professor, isn't even from the media).


You realize that you're doing the same thing here that you're accusing the media of doing? You're taking a handful of weak examples and are trying to convince us that these are representative of a much larger collection, likely with better examples since the first were so easy to obtain (also, there's your 40 years of memories!) ... without doing any of the research to back that claim up.
The evidence we have does not prove if the warming is from human activity or part of the natural and ever changing dynamic evolution of our planet. If you go by evidence only on temperatures, then something is very wrong with how cool the planet is, based on historical evidence. And who's to blame for the ice ages and then the warm ups since...

I accept that human activity is speeding up the warming. I don't think we are the cause. I think it was already occurring on its own as the evidence suggests. Just means we will be 4c warmer 100 years sooner (maybe) we should be spending efforts on cleaning up the air for our own health. And we should be preparing our nations for the effects of a warming planet.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The evidence we have does not prove if the warming is from human activity or part of the natural and ever changing dynamic evolution of our planet. If you go by evidence only on temperatures, then something is very wrong with how cool the planet is, based on historical evidence. And who's to blame for the ice ages and then the warm ups since...
It's pretty clear you haven't done even a basic amount of research on this subject. By all means, at least start with the Wikipedia page. It will inform you greatly on many of the items you've incorrectly or ignorantly commented on above.

IJust means we will be 4c warmer 100 years sooner (maybe) we should be spending efforts on cleaning up the air for our own health. And we should be preparing our nations for the effects of a warming planet.
Agreed. In my opinion the real question is whether we should be trying to "reverse" AGW, or spending our time/money instead on ways to live with its presence.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,