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 7)
Thread Tools
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 12:21 PM
 
I think you are both wrong. I think ebuddy is down playing the CO2 (not by much) and Final Shortcut is over playing the CO2 contribution. A lot of other factors play into global warming. It has been the natural trend for the last few thousand years and the temperature of the planet has never been static.

CO2 is playing a part
Reduction in Forests and Biomass is also playing a part
Paving the ground for cities and the heat generated by cities create micro climate zones
Changes in the Sun and solar output

Im sure there are other things too. To pin it all on CO2 is foobar.
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
Jun 12, 2012, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Nothing absolute here....


very likely
may account
almost certainly
appear to be
is also possible that they may have
difficult to predict
appear to have
By definition, nothing in science is "absolute". The fact that you apparently require absolute language means you'll never accept the validity of 95% of the scientific papers ever published....
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
To pin it all on CO2 is foobar.
No one is "pinning it all on CO2".

The conversation is CO2-centric for the narrow purposes of this discussion only.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 02:40 PM
 
I really would like to see a study on the effects of the loss of Forests and Biomass along with how cities and urban centers affect climate change. I have never been able to find one that went into great detail on either.

In 2008 it was estimated that there was 125 million houses in the US. Think about each one of those homes emitting heat, add to that the 254,212,610 registered cars (2009) all generating heat when used, add in trucks, industry and you have a lot of localized heat generation.

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

Nasa has a nice video that explains it but on average a city can raise its environment by up to 7+ c
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
To sum up: Climate change is real and mankind is very likely responsible for the vast majority of the increase in CO2 emissions that almost certainly account for approximately 1.5-3.5 degree C increases in global surface temperature from 1900-2100.

It's amazing to me that you've found this single study that has found a specific period in Earth's history that demonstrates what climate scientists have been saying for decades - that other, incredibly powerful climate drivers exist - and have seized on the conclusion that "these other drivers are at play and thus it's pointless to do anything about CO2". The number of missing steps required to get to that conclusion is...scary.
Whoa hoss, couple of problems here.

You've repeated ad nauseam what we don't know of these other mechanisms, whether or not they exist today, and to what degree they account for climate change. All acceptable of course. After all, this is what the study claims as well. But you see, they didn't expect CO2 concentrations to account for only 1.5-3.5 degrees of the total warming of the PETM let alone what they know it will account for to the year 2100. In fact, they used our current understanding of climate sensitivity to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that current understanding accounted for surprisingly little of the warming event in question.

It was a surprise claims the lead scientist. An enigma he says. We need more carbon to explain the warming he says. Add "today" greg. Just one word. It makes no sense to take all the labor of a published, peer reviewed study to learn more of climate sensitivity today and eliminate any implication of today. What you fail to understand is that this is exactly what you have to do by arguing with me here. When a scientist expresses surprise using the term enigma followed up with why, this is more than the industry-standard, tepid nomenclature used to illustrate a lacking bias as you were quick to rebuke in BadKosh's post.

For you to attempt to beat people over the head with caps-locks, ad homs, and emoticons using an emotionally-charged posting style that in sum illustrates a woeful lack of regard for the scientific process, the infancy of this discipline in particular, and the breadth of proposed legislation both domestically and internationally; is among the more foolhardy things I've seen here in a long time.

I predict this will be among the first of many more surprises and enigmas to those who've too-long been duped by the CO2 boogeyman. Although, the more I learn of their own lifestyles the less I think they believe their own bs.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
By definition, nothing in science is "absolute". The fact that you apparently require absolute language means you'll never accept the validity of 95% of the scientific papers ever published....

DUH! I also ONLY made note of the phrases, I did NOT require anything. Do you generally alienate everybody on purpose? Seems you're using language that suggests you are not sure of your 'facts' or theories.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Whoa hoss, couple of problems here.

You've repeated ad nauseam what we don't know of these other mechanisms, whether or not they exist today, and to what degree they account for climate change. All acceptable of course. After all, this is what the study claims as well. But you see, they didn't expect CO2 concentrations to account for only 1.5-3.5 degrees of the total warming of the PETM let alone what they know it will account for to the year 2100. In fact, they used our current understanding of climate sensitivity to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that current understanding accounted for surprisingly little of the warming event in question.
They didn't "expect" CO2 concentrations to account for "only" that amount of warming because they didn't know that other warming mechanisms were playing a factor during that period. I've said it before and I'll say it again: that was the discovery that was so surprising.

Throughout this conversation you have entirely seemed to be ignoring the fact that we have already identified other historical "analogues" - or perhaps the more accurate term is "proxies". All of these periods have their individual quirks - because they all had slightly different forcing mechanisms. (As I've stated many times, the position of the continents and the subsequent change in ocean currents simply cannot be underestimated as to its myriad of likely affects on climate.) It's not like this is the first example of historical climate we've ever seen, and it turns out that CO2 doesn't "explain anything"....

It was a surprise claims the lead scientist. An enigma he says.
Indeed! The authors had just discovered the existence of incredibly powerful warming mechanism(s) operating in the PETM which no one had identified before, and which hadn't been seen in other historical time periods.

How is this not a "surprise" or an "enigma"?
We need more carbon to explain the warming he says. Add "today" greg. Just one word.
Today? Where do I add the word? We don't "need more carbon" to explain the warming we see "today" - we largely understand carbon's role in the warming we see today, and it largely explains it. If the authors of the study did the same experiment on our current climate, they wouldn't need "more carbon". So what are you trying to say here? Stop trying to get me to "add the word" and just come out and say what you mean.

It makes no sense to take all the labor of a published, peer reviewed study to learn more of climate sensitivity today and eliminate any implication of today.
The authors specifically mention the implication of "today". In the study.

And what do they say, ebuddy? Do they agree with your position, and say that their work "casts doubt on CO2 forcing"? Do they imply, as you do, that their work minimizes mankind's contribution to climate change?

They don't, do they. Innnnnnnteresting.

What you fail to understand is that this is exactly what you have to do by arguing with me here. When a scientist expresses surprise using the term enigma followed up with why, this is more than the industry-standard, tepid nomenclature used to illustrate a lacking bias as you were quick to rebuke in BadKosh's post.
"Industry-standard tepid nomenclature." Spoken like someone who truly doesn't understand the scientific process.

I love your attempts to lecture me on what it means when a "scientist expresses surprise", though. So you're the expert on this particular topic? You, who couldn't be arsed to read the actual study when you first posted it? And you take this opportunity to lecture me, who has a university degree in a scientific field, who spent years reading, analyzing, and even contributing (in quite a small way - drafting stage) to a couple scientific publications?

Thanks for the info, Expert Ebuddy. Consider me Enlightened.

For you to attempt to beat people over the head with caps-locks, ad homs, and emoticons using an emotionally-charged posting style that in sum illustrates a woeful lack of regard for the scientific process, the infancy of this discipline in particular, and the breadth of proposed legislation both domestically and internationally; is among the more foolhardy things I've seen here in a long time.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes. ebuddy, that bastion of "regard for the scientific process"! The person who has posted, over the years, literally dozens of scientific papers which have been deemed completely irrelevant or completely worthless by actual, practicing climate scientists, all to support his agenda against any suggestion that humans are actually causing climate change...and who keeps doing it. A real bastion, you are.

My "attempts to beat you over the head" stem from your breathtakingly obstinate unwillingness to admit that you have repeatedly and specifically misinterpreted and miscontrued this publication throughout this thread. I've provided specific examples of things you have said which are demonstrably incorrect. And still you switch topics and return to your original argument.

I predict this will be among the first of many more surprises and enigmas to those who've too-long been duped by the CO2 boogeyman. Although, the more I learn of their own lifestyles the less I think they believe their own bs.
By the end of the 21st century, assuming no significant decrease in our CO2 output, we should be at a CO2 atmospheric concentration of at least 750ppm (some say as high as 1000ppm, depending on whether some sinks reach capacity within this span) - a massive carbon influx over the course of ~300 years.

I suppose you consider that all "boogeyman" talk though, right? The increase to 750+ppm won't actually have a real or noticeable affect on the planet's temperature? Please confirm.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
DUH! I also ONLY made note of the phrases, I did NOT require anything. Do you generally alienate everybody on purpose? Seems you're using language that suggests you are not sure of your 'facts' or theories.
Ohhhhhhhhhh., okay.

So, you "did NOT require" absolute language...but the fact that I did not use absolute language means that I'm not sure of my facts or theories regarding climate change.

Is that about it?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Indeed! The authors had just discovered the existence of incredibly powerful warming mechanism(s) operating in the PETM which no one had identified before, and which hadn't been seen in other historical time periods.
Right, that's why they posit other mechanisms in the study... you know, ones that had been seen in other historical time periods.

Today? Where do I add the word? We don't "need more carbon" to explain the warming we see "today" - we largely understand carbon's role in the warming we see today, and it largely explains it.
we largely understand carbon's role in the warming we see today. You're the gift that keeps on giving. Except, our current understanding of carbon's role in warming does not reconcile with a warming event. That was the surprise greg, that was the enigma. Never mind the scientific process right shortcut? I mean, you largely understand the role of CO2 in climate change and that's good enough for you.

If the authors of the study did the same experiment on our current climate, they wouldn't need "more carbon". So what are you trying to say here? Stop trying to get me to "add the word" and just come out and say what you mean.
Of course, as long as we just pretend that the factors supposed to have played a potential, majority role in the PETM warming event could not exist today and are of no merit to understanding more of climate sensitivity today. Today? Oh yeah... hell, they've got that all figured out. The PETM is the PETM, nothing to see here.

I suppose you consider that all "boogeyman" talk though, right? The increase to 750+ppm won't actually have a real or noticeable affect on the planet's temperature? Please confirm.
Confirm what, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations don't exist in a vacuum greg, void of any other warming or cooling factors? Hey, you outta check out Zeebe's study where he calls into question the idea that atmospheric CO2 exists in a vacuum.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Ohhhhhhhhhh., okay.

So, you "did NOT require" absolute language...but the fact that I did not use absolute language means that I'm not sure of my facts or theories regarding climate change.

Is that about it?

Words mean something. Are you claiming you have issues choosing your words, or that you really are stating opinions as fact?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2012, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
Indeed! The authors had just discovered the existence of incredibly powerful warming mechanism(s) operating in the PETM which no one had identified before, and which hadn't been seen in other historical time periods.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, that's why they posit other mechanisms in the study... you know, ones that had been seen in other historical time periods.
Sorry, poor wording on my part. "Which no one had identified before" related to the PETM period - no one knew the forcing effect of those mechanisms during that time period.

"Hadn't been seen in other historical time periods" should have been "hadn't been seen in many other historical time periods." Obviously, we know that other forcing mechanisms exist because we've documented them elsewhere are different points. The point was, there are other historical proxies, and we don't necessarily have this large, unexplained gap during these periods. So discounting all these other proxies is simply, in a word, foolish - which is why the scientists involved specifically did not try to draw the same conclusions which ebuddy has so definitely drawn.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
we largely understand carbon's role in the warming we see today. You're the gift that keeps on giving. Except, our current understanding of carbon's role in warming does not reconcile with a warming event.


Ummmmm, what? Are you trying to insinuate - again - that anyone is saying CO2 is the primary driver? The existence of non-CO2 forcing mechanisms is a tenant of climate science.

I ask you, ebuddy: why would the existence of a non-CO2 forcing mechanism not reconcile with our knowledge of CO2 forcing?

That was the surprise greg, that was the enigma.
Wrong. The surprise and enigma was the mysterious non-CO2 forcing event.

Of course, as long as we just pretend that the factors supposed to have played a potential, majority role in the PETM warming event could not exist today and are of no merit to understanding more of climate sensitivity today. Today? Oh yeah... hell, they've got that all figured out. The PETM is the PETM, nothing to see here.
Stop being a ****ing idiot. I've stated time and time again that the factors may or may not exist today - there's no data on that point.

About 80% of your posts have been a complete straw man. So tiring.

Confirm what, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations don't exist in a vacuum greg, void of any other warming or cooling factors? Hey, you outta check out Zeebe's study where he calls into question the idea that atmospheric CO2 exists in a vacuum.
I mentioned nothing about other, external forcing mechanisms. I mean solely the rise in CO2. Got it? Solely the rise in CO2.

Now, please answer my question, instead of evading it again:
Originally Posted by me
By the end of the 21st century, assuming no significant decrease in our CO2 output, we should be at a CO2 atmospheric concentration of at least 750ppm (some say as high as 1000ppm, depending on whether some sinks reach capacity within this span) - a massive carbon influx over the course of ~300 years.

I suppose you consider that all "boogeyman" talk though, right? The increase to 750+ppm won't actually have a real or noticeable affect on the planet's temperature? Please confirm.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Sorry, poor wording on my part. "Which no one had identified before" related to the PETM period - no one knew the forcing effect of those mechanisms during that time period.

"Hadn't been seen in other historical time periods" should have been "hadn't been seen in many other historical time periods." Obviously, we know that other forcing mechanisms exist because we've documented them elsewhere are different points. The point was, there are other historical proxies, and we don't necessarily have this large, unexplained gap during these periods. So discounting all these other proxies is simply, in a word, foolish - which is why the scientists involved specifically did not try to draw the same conclusions which ebuddy has so definitely drawn.
I don't think you worded it poorly as much as you're full-on walking it back now having been caught pretending the mechanisms are unique to the PETM again.



Ummmmm, what? Are you trying to insinuate - again - that anyone is saying CO2 is the primary driver? The existence of non-CO2 forcing mechanisms is a tenant of climate science.
Hard telling really. You like to vacillate between the two in your redirects. Kind of like the PETM assumption above.

I ask you, ebuddy: why would the existence of a non-CO2 forcing mechanism not reconcile with our knowledge of CO2 forcing?
You mean, why would evidence showing the potentially dominant factor of non-CO2 forcing mechanisms not reconcile with our current understanding of CO2 forcing? Why the disingenuous query here? I've already indicated multiple times how this calls into question our current understanding and then you argued with me about it... just before citing the questions.

Nice try.

Wrong. The surprise and enigma was the mysterious non-CO2 forcing event.
That's it? I thought they learned about this phenomena back in high school. Dig deep greg, you're missing something critical here and I think you know exactly what it is.

About 80% of your posts have been a complete straw man. So tiring.
That reminds me, have you gotten back to me with my alleged claim that CO2 has no control on climate?

I mentioned nothing about other, external forcing mechanisms. I mean solely the rise in CO2. Got it? Solely the rise in CO2.
Now, please answer my question, instead of evading it again:
You're asking me if an increase to 750+ppm would not actually have a real or noticeable affect on the planet's temperature? First, I know for certain burdensome regulations and sloppily crafted legislation will have a major impact on the planet. I don't like hasty political action crafted around angsty zeal. Second, I would have to assume CO2 exists in a vacuum to know. As we've established here before, this may be easier for you than me.

Lastly, my guess is that we will continue to identify and eventually quantify the other mechanisms to such extent as to render the anthropogenic CO2 contribution outside the legislative process where it belongs. The good news is this will not preclude progress in the energy sector.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2012, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut
Stop being a ****ing idiot.
We're done here.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2012, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't think you worded it poorly as much as you're full-on walking it back now having been caught pretending the mechanisms are unique to the PETM again.
You've claimed, over and over, that I'm saying that the warming mechanisms are specific to the PETM - BUT I HAVE NEVER DONE SO, AND IN FACT HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT THAT I HAVE CLEARLY SAID THAT ANY SUCH WARMING MECHANISMS MAY EXIST TODAY.
Hard telling really. You like to vacillate between the two in your redirects. Kind of like the PETM assumption above.

You mean, why would evidence showing the potentially dominant factor of non-CO2 forcing mechanisms not reconcile with our current understanding of CO2 forcing? Why the disingenuous query here?
YES. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. How is this question in any way disingenuous?!? Are you actually unable to see the difference between forcing caused by CO2 factors, and forcing caused by factors other than CO2?

I've already indicated multiple times how this calls into question our current understanding and then you argued with me about it... just before citing the questions.
You have never said how this "calls into question" our current understanding of CO2 forcing. Never. You stated it, and then shut the **** up when I called you on it.......and then have kept stating it again. Once again, your definition of an argument, as this board well knows.

That's it? I thought they learned about this phenomena back in high school. Dig deep greg, you're missing something critical here and I think you know exactly what it is.
Learned about what "phenomena"? What "phenomena" did we learn about in high school that was present during the PETM, ebuddy?

Jesus ****ing Christ, you're deliberately obtuse: the authors discovered that there was a non-CO2 forcing event. They did not have any data to say which one(s) may have been present.

That reminds me, have you gotten back to me with my alleged claim that CO2 has no control on climate?
Oh no, you've refined the claim of your fellow "skeptics" - now it's "plays such a small role that it makes no difference".

You're asking me if an increase to 750+ppm would not actually have a real or noticeable affect on the planet's temperature? First, I know for certain burdensome regulations and sloppily crafted legislation will have a major impact on the planet. I don't like hasty political action crafted around angsty zeal.
What the **** does this have to do with my question? Honestly...what the **** does your "first" have to do with my question?
Second, I would have to assume CO2 exists in a vacuum to know. As we've established here before, this may be easier for you than me.
HAH! LOVELY attempt at a non-answer to duck the question. So you don't actually accept the fact that a doubling in CO2 would have any real or noticeable affect on Earth's temperature, huh?? You don't actually have any knowledge of the fact that increases in CO2 cause a measurable increase in temperature, or the mechanism(s) by which this temperature increase is brought about? Ohhhhhhh, boy. Wow. Ignorance is truly bliss.

Lastly, my guess is that we will continue to identify and eventually quantify the other mechanisms to such extent as to render the anthropogenic CO2 contribution outside the legislative process where it belongs.
Oh yes, right. "Your guess" >>> "climate science", based on a single paper that you hadn't read before this thread, and still can't understand, since you take from it a different conclusion than any other practicing climate scientist or the authors of the paper themselves.
The good news is this will not preclude progress in the energy sector.
As if "progress in the energy sector" has been precluded in any way by the renewed focus on harvesting and developing energy sources that are not fossil-fuel based over the past couple decades? Absolutely silly. There is no basis whatsoever for this sort of nonsense drivel; energy companies would dominant any such emerging market in a heartbeat because of their existing revenue base, which will stay hugely profitable as-is for hundreds of years down the road.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We're done here.
We are if you continue acting like an idiot and repeatedly claim that I've said something I specifically did not say.
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Jun 17, 2012 at 05:29 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 06:47 AM
 
I'm just so glad that we've come to a point where we are finally able to admit that there's currently really no scientific way to tell if the sky is indeed falling, and all the insistence in the past that we change our lifestyles to ones better reflecting left-wing values was just political grandstanding and not "science."

We're now in a better place that we know that the doom and gloom predictions where just the works of the "fringe" and had little to do with "science" or mainstream scientists.

This revelation is likely going to save us a lot of money and resources in the end.

     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
As I said before, the concern shouldn't be something like the health of the planet but more of a personal level the health of people. Environmentalist wants a reduction in pollution to save the planet. Um ya. Ok. I want a reduction of pollution to clean the air I breath and better my personal health in my environment.

Same end result, 2 different reasons for reducing pollution. Environmentalist operate on a scope and scale that people can not associate with. I think the energy and resources are misplaced for achieving anything of importance that would make a difference.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
As I said before, the concern shouldn't be something like the health of the planet but more of a personal level the health of people. Environmentalist wants a reduction in pollution to save the planet. Um ya. Ok. I want a reduction of pollution to clean the air I breath and better my personal health in my environment.

Same end result, 2 different reasons for reducing pollution. Environmentalist operate on a scope and scale that people can not associate with. I think the energy and resources are misplaced for achieving anything of importance that would make a difference.
I agree. I have no problems with reasonable attempts to reduce the amount of unnecessary carcinogens or irritants in the air. I just remember not long ago that the big worry was the stuff we exhaled, and it was claimed it was based on irrefutable science that we where guaranteed to have an environmental catastrophe unless we drastically changed our way of life in order to reduce the amount of it we released into the air. We're now at a point where no reasonable scientist will claim that there's clear proof that reducing the amount of C02 in the air will change climate that much. Lesson learned. Economic catastrophe avoided!
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:05 AM
 
...wow
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:15 AM
 
wow indeed
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:56 PM
 
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So you agree that climate change is happening and is cause by humans?

"Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions"
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2012, 03:43 PM
 
I think most climate skeptics do believe that it would be better if we lower our emissions, all things being equal. But they're mainly resisting what they think is an extreme overreaction to the climate facts by green crusaders who either have ulterior motives or are letting themselves be taken advantage of by those who do. In quite the same way that terrorism skeptics don't deny that terrorism is real and that eliminating it would be fantastic all things being equal, but that the reactions we are already taking are already far too extreme and causing more harm than good.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2012, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So you agree that climate change is happening and is cause by humans?
I was agreeing with "Wow."

I then posted a link that agrees with me, in that lots of people have been blowing all of this out of proportion for political gain.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 04:18 PM
 
The worst pollution technically isn't caused by humans. Just indirectly. (Points a finger at a cows $ss)

almost 50% of our green house gas emissions comes from Cows alone.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The worst pollution technically isn't caused by humans. Just indirectly. (Points a finger at a cows $ss)

almost 50% of our green house gas emissions comes from Cows alone.
It would seem odd for a country founded on the principle that we were "created" to be caught up in solving a problem that's primarily caused by the design of that "creator." If the "creator" didn't want "green house gas emissions" he wouldn't have created all the animal life on the planet to expel them. Seeing how for the most part somehow the Earth has found a way to balance all this and for us to still thrive, it's quite egotistical to think that we can outsmart our creator.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 08:29 AM
 
wow ... again

I wonder if that's the anti-climate change crowd in a nutshell ...
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 08:30 AM
 
Nice, the old "let's not outsmart our Creator" argument!

An astonishingly ignorant argument to make, considering the millions of things humans do every day to "outsmart" what their Creator built.

     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It would seem odd for a country founded on the principle that we were "created" to be caught up in solving a problem that's primarily caused by the design of that "creator." If the "creator" didn't want "green house gas emissions" he wouldn't have created all the animal life on the planet to expel them. Seeing how for the most part somehow the Earth has found a way to balance all this and for us to still thrive, it's quite egotistical to think that we can outsmart our creator.
I'll play the creator line, because it could be god or aliens

If the creator intended for so many dumb grazing animals to be roaming around eating and polluting, he/she/it wouldn't have created predators to keep the populations down to more reasonable numbers. We grow a LOT of cows for our food consumption. These numbers would not have been reached if nature was allowed to feast on them the way we do. The cow population is artificial for service our tummies.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
wow ... again
I'm constantly amazed by the quality of your contributions to the posts here. Kudos!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2012, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I'll play the creator line, because it could be god or aliens
Yep, lot's of possibilities regarding our unproven origins!

If the creator intended for so many dumb grazing animals to be roaming around eating and polluting, he/she/it wouldn't have created predators to keep the populations down to more reasonable numbers.
Maybe natural disasters too?

We grow a LOT of cows for our food consumption. These numbers would not have been reached if nature was allowed to feast on them the way we do. The cow population is artificial for service our tummies.
Possibly. Good point.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 08:25 AM
 
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/...-temperatures/

Both droughts and floods passed the simple test. These showed a clear trend in response to precipitation changes, and the trend was in the right direction—people perceived more floods and fewer droughts when there was more rain. And, in the statistical analysis, ideology and political affiliation had a weak effect on the accuracy of recollections, having about as much influence as education.

Things were completely different for temperatures. In fact, the actual trends in temperatures had nothing to do with how people perceived them. If you graphed the predictive power of people's perceptions against the actual temperatures, the resulting line was flat—it showed no trend at all. In the statistical model, the actual weather had little impact on people's perception of recent temperatures. Education continued to have a positive impact on whether they got it right, but its magnitude was dwarfed by the influences of political affiliation and cultural beliefs.

And those cultural affiliations had about the effect you'd expect. Individualists, who often object to environmental regulations as an infringement on their freedoms, tended to think the temperatures hadn't gone up in their area, regardless of whether they had. Strong egalitarians, in contrast, tended to believe the temperatures had gone up.
The human mind is an amazing thing.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 10:30 PM
 
for all who thinks this is a hoax

why?

is it because it would mean we need to change our ways?

is it because it's a "liberals" cause?

is it because of religion?

is it because you don't trust science?

please explain
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 02:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I really would like to see a study on the effects of the loss of Forests and Biomass along with how cities and urban centers affect climate change. I have never been able to find one that went into great detail on either.
Because there's no money to be made from it.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 02:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
for all who thinks this is a hoax
why?
I really don't think was a "hoax." I think it's an example of people believing something, trying to find data which supports their belief, and then ignoring other possibilities because they believe so deeply.

A "hoax" tends to infer that someone purposely tried to mislead. It's only now, that we have evidence that does not support the previously assured "settled" science, that people who continue to try infer that they know what's truly going on (and how to fix it) reveal themselves to be not too bright, too brainwashed by dogma, or NOW perpetrating a hoax because their livelihood depends on it.

is it because it would mean we need to change our ways?
is it because it's a "liberals" cause?
is it because of religion?
I think that those who have insisted and NOW continue to do so do it because it is their religion. I'd be willing to bet that most people still worshiping at the altar of "man made global warming" do not have any other religious belief system. Not any they believe as strongly in.

is it because you don't trust science?
please explain
I trust science. I don't always trust those who claim to practice it. I know human nature too well, and history shows that this sort of thing is rife for turning into politics and distorting the truth.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2012, 03:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
for all who thinks this is a hoax
why?
is it because it would mean we need to change our ways?
You need laws for this? Haven't you already changed your ways? This reminds me of all the tax-dodgers who want more legislation to complicate the tax code.

is it because it's a "liberals" cause?
On the contrary. If liberals were still -- liberal, they'd find the notion of global legislation around this fear-mongering most reprehensible.

is it because of religion?
Yes, we'll call it the AGW's Witnesses

is it because you don't trust science?
Don't you? I mean, Science says lots of things.

please explain
There are no less than 7 pages of explanation in this most recent global warming thread alone. If you were truly interested, you'd read it.
ebuddy
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 07:37 AM
 
So, since this guy was a skeptic at first, should we actually listen to him? I mean, for those that believe in man-made-global-warming, surely someone who was so wrong at first, shouldn't be listened to now.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
for all who thinks this is a hoax
why?
is it because it would mean we need to change our ways?
is it because it's a "liberals" cause?
is it because of religion?
is it because you don't trust science?
please explain
I don't think its a hoax its more denial. Society as a whole can suffer the same effects as a single person in the face of bad news. Some one who tests positive for HIV will go through a stage of denial then dispare then anger before learning to coop, move on and live with it. Society is very much like a individual. We are in denial of the problem of climate change. Some see it and some refuse to see it.

The problem is also the scope of the problem related to it, and limited understanding.

Personally I believe climate has always been a state of fluctuation. And we "MIGHT" have a effect on it, and we might not. That does not change the fact its happening. And its not a issue of laying blame any more either because its happening. We should be adjusting our society to coop with it. The data is clear we know what to expect. We may have to start relocating cities, or making modifications to cities to deal with it.

When it comes to air, land and water pollution we should be dealing with it not for controlling climate change. We don't know if we are causing climate change. We should be dealing with it for our own local health. Reducing air pollution in our cities should be to provide safer air for the people of the city. This is something people can understand, its tangible to people.

(Lets reduce air pollution to save the planet, reduce global warming) This is something not tangible, its to complex to large. The "people in India are not so why should I, how can I make a difference when the world isn't doing its part) plays a factor in it too.

(Lets reduce air pollution so my air is better to breath where I live and work) This is something people can relate to and understand. Its not this large global complex thing any more. Its local, directly to the person and something easy to understand. And this is where the attempts to change how we do things should start. How it benefits people personally and locally. The side effect is any changes we make to better the air quality and water quality locally for ourselves will also benefit the planet as a whole.


We are a very wasteful society and the last few generations have been conditioned to be wasteful because for businesses this is good. Buying cheap furniture every few years and tossing out the cheap furniture is helpful for business, bad for resources and the environment.

Cost savings and cutting corners using chemicals, artificial products, and destructive manufacturing methods all in the name of making things cheaper and more abundant is playing negatively in the grand scheme of world health and personal health.

There is no reason why we need to replace a car every 10 years, or to replace a computer every 4 years. We are just pushed to do that for economics. A well maintained car can last 30+ years. Software programmers gave up on making programs efficient because the hardware got so powerful so fast it was no longer a concern. All software today is bloated and lazy.

Our current economics are incompatible with lowering our demand on energy and the use of resources. Sadly the changes we need to make to improve the quality of health for us individually which also affects the global health as a side effect means making major changes in how we live. Our society is not structured in a way to make that easy. It really gets down to the core of how our cities are laid out, how we make things, how we use things. And for now its easier to deny a global problem. Call it a hoax or ignorance but economic powers do not want to deal with it because of the cost to the bottom dollar in doing so.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Personally I believe climate has always been a state of fluctuation. And we "MIGHT" have a effect on it, and we might not.
No. We absolutely, 100% affect earth's climate. That's something we figured out quite some time ago.

That is the first step that you should make. From there, yes, it does get somewhat more unsteady.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
So, since this guy was a skeptic at first, should we actually listen to him? I mean, for those that believe in man-made-global-warming, surely someone who was so wrong at first, shouldn't be listened to now.
Really? This person had a viewpoint that they believed was correct, and then they apparently sat down and did a thorough examination of the available evidence, and then changed their viewpoint based on that evidence. And to you, that means we shouldn't listen to them now? It would have been better had they simply ignored the evidence they studied, and steadfastedly held onto their previous views no matter what?

I apologize if your post was completely in jest, but you're sounding crazier by the minute.

Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
No. We absolutely, 100% affect earth's climate. That's something we figured out quite some time ago..
I'm sure that's "settled science" like how the assured continual rising temperatures caused by C02 emissions was "settled science."

     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 01:10 PM
 
Please show me where "continual rising temperatures caused by CO2" is declared "settled science".


Please note: if you do not respond, you're a troll.


Thanks.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2012, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Please show me where "continual rising temperatures caused by CO2" is declared "settled science".
Please note: if you do not respond, you're a troll.
Thanks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/02/10/an-unsettling-week-for-global-warmings-settled-science/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/16/the-myth-of-settled-science/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warming_and_the_settled.html
http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/04/climate-skeptic-lord-monckton-challenges-settled-science-on-global-warming/
http://junkscience.com/2012/02/11/michaels-an-unsettling-week-for-global-warmings-settled-science/

Again, whenever someone claims a scientific idea is settled that involves some degree of politics, it's usually time to dig deeper, and definitely time to put on your sceptic's hat.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2012, 03:00 AM
 
Errrr.....you just provided multiple articles written by people who are claiming that some uncredited third person said the "science was settled". You provided absolutely nothing - zilch, zip, zero - to show that someone has said "continually rising temperatures caused by CO2 is settled science".

I repeat:

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Please show me where "continual rising temperatures caused by CO2" is declared "settled science".


Please note: if you do not respond, you're a troll.


Thanks.
Thanks.
Considering that statement would be contrary to the types of feedback systems that are fundamental to our understanding of climate...well, let's just say I think you're talking out of your ass. Again. Yet again.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2012, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Errrr.....you just provided multiple articles written by people who are claiming that some uncredited third person said the "science was settled".]
OK then, you are right. The science isn't settled, never was, and no one made that claim.

I'll accept that.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2012, 07:59 AM
 
You're entirely confusing the scientific field, and specific conclusions reached by scientists within that field. No one, for example, has said - ever said that it was "settled" that CO2 would cause continually rising global temperatures. The very fact that you think someone has said this, amply demonstrates your complete ignorance of the topic.

On the other hand, the science is indeed "settled" on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has a measureable contribution to the greenhouse effect.

The rough equivalent for your statement, would be for a scientist to conclude: "the science is settled: the HIV virus is transmitted this way and has this effect" and you then claim, "THE SCIENCE ON HIV IS SETTLED".

Absolutely ludicrous. But, of course....that's your m.o. after all.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You're entirely confusing the scientific field, and specific conclusions reached by scientists within that field. No one, for example, has said - ever said that it was "settled" that CO2 would cause continually rising global temperatures. The very fact that you think someone has said this, amply demonstrates your complete ignorance of the topic.
Do a Google search.

It would seem that the vast majority of people writing about this topic must be ignorant as well. Apparently you're the only guy who truly understands.

On the other hand, the science is indeed "settled" on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which has a measureable contribution to the greenhouse effect.
"[O]ur understanding of nature is an evolving and never-ending process. We’re forever refining and reforming our model of reality. Anyone who suggests that the science is “settled” is missing the point."

James Hrynyshyn

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/settled-science-and-co2/

For years, organizations like the UN IPCC have insisted that it was "settle science" that we are causing global warming and that it is us who are creating an oncoming crisis because those models showed rapidly warming temperatures - caused by us. That warming didn't occur, and therefore the science behind the assumptions that we are causing global warming WHEN THERE IS REALLY NO GLOBAL WARMING can't be taken seriously as "settled."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1413822

Climate "science" is now in a state of denial trying to backpedal the outrageous claims that were made during 2000's, and insist that they never existed. Sorry.
With each additional post, you paint yourself more and more as a fanatic, not someone who is really interested in the truth. We get it.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2012, 07:41 AM
 
Soooooo........I notice you still haven't provided any link or statement made in which "continual rising temperatures caused by CO2" is declared "settled science".

Do you want to do that? Or are you going to continue to ignore the part where I ask you to provide proof to back up your completely outrageous statement?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 06:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Soooooo........I notice you still haven't provided any link or statement made in which "continual rising temperatures caused by CO2" is declared "settled science".

Do you want to do that? Or are you going to continue to ignore the part where I ask you to provide proof to back up your completely outrageous statement?
Bump for request
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Soooooo........I notice you still haven't provided any link or statement made in which "continual rising temperatures caused by CO2" is declared "settled science".
Do you want to do that? Or are you going to continue to ignore the part where I ask you to provide proof to back up your completely outrageous statement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2012, 08:27 AM
 
Oh.

We're going there, are we.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
 
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 05:18 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.,