[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Oh, I see the problem: you're reading the study backwards?

You're choosing to say that if a given temperature increase doesn't result in a certain corresponding increase in atmospheric carbon, then our carbon forcing sensitivity calculations are wrong.

No. I'm saying from the study; using accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the rise in CO2 can explain only a small portion of the warming inferred from proxy records. While these results may have been surprising to those with the CO2-horrors presupposition, it is not surprising to a great many other scientists and experts who believe too much is being made of a science in its infancy.

The authors, on the other hand, made no such leap in logic - because it is a basic erroneous logic error. They specifically did not disagree with the accepted forcing calculations. Instead, they devoted an entire paragraph which explains their results in the opposite manner: that the noted atmospheric carbon increase would only have contributed to our current accepted value of warming, but the rest of the warming may be explained in various other as-yet-unknown ways, examples for some of which they provide.

Which of course includes any of the other mechanisms supposed by other climate scientists and experts. Although, it is true that by continuing to pump CO2 into the atmosphere we're gambling with uncertainty. From the results of a study that examine system sensitivity from the Paleogene period; it seems we're gambling with uncertainty regardless.

Basically, you're trying to use this study to say something that it doesn't say. Oh, wait.......we've known that for the past two pages.

The only reason you'd interpret this study in the manner you have is a complete dedication to the CO2 hype. This is a stance and there's no reason the science in the study needs to suggest what you claim.

Originally Posted by shortcut

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying from the study; using accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the rise in CO2 can explain only a small portion of the warming inferred from proxy records.

Does this not suggest that, while there is a natural warming occurring, humans are *contributing* to that warming?

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying from the study; using accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the rise in CO2 can explain only a small portion of the warming inferred from proxy records. While these results may have been surprising to those with the CO2-horrors presupposition, it is not surprising to a great many other scientists and experts who believe too much is being made of a science in its infancy.

Out of mild curiosity, are you aware that your above paragraph/response:
a) does not cast any doubt whatsoever on our current estimates of the "minimum levels" of global warming based on CO2 output; and
b) suggests that global warming values may in fact be larger than what we would have expected based on our CO2 forcing calculations; and
c) inherently validates the taking of even greater preventative measures against global warming?

Considering that your general argument seems to be the opposite of those above points, you might see where I'm coming from with my outright surprise that you would take this stance.

[Waragainstsleep]

Whatever the cause, its been pretty warm here the last couple of days. Relatively speaking of course, those of you who live in Texas or Arizona would probably think it quite cool.

[andi*pandi]

Massachusetts should be declared a rainforest. Stop goddamn raining would you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Does this not suggest that, while there is a natural warming occurring, humans are *contributing* to that warming?

That has never been my point of contention. After all, termites are *contributing* to climate change. I think this degree of focus on the human contribution misses easily the lion's share of evidence for natural variability; wild variability in eras where humans weren't contributing to the living, let alone warming and cooling.

IMO, if you want to have the greatest impact on global climate you'll have to first address that giant, extremely volatile lightbulb that hangs over us all. Because we can't, but still need legislation that seeks to level the global financial playing field and line the pockets of a few winners in the alternative energy sectors; we point at mankind.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Out of mild curiosity, are you aware that your above paragraph/response:

a) demonstrates that CO2 output, based on our current knowledge; was insufficient to account for the 5–9 °C rise in global surface temperature during the PETM warming period...
b) suggesting that other mechanisms may in fact be a larger contributor than what we would have expected based on our CO2 forcing calculations and...
c) may invalidate the taking of even greater preventative measures against global warming.

Yes, that's why I've made the above statements. I maintain the only reason to have interpreted that study as you have is rigid adherence to CO2 dogma.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

a) demonstrates that CO2 output, based on our current knowledge; was insufficient to account for the 5–9 °C rise in global surface temperature during the PETM warming period...

Or...to put it another way...the observed CO2 rise was sufficient to explain only some of the observed warming.

Here, let me put it yet another way for you: the observed CO2 rise would have caused some of the warming - in fact, it would have caused 1-3.5 degrees of warming based on accepted calculations. Just like an observed CO2 rise today will cause a certain calculated temperature increase. It would not have accounted for the additional warming observed.

Please think about that for a while, because you don't seem to understand the implications of what you're writing. Then, consider why I made the following statement:

a) does not cast any doubt whatsoever on our current estimates of the "minimum levels" of global warming based on CO2 output; and

Now, let me write a very basic logic puzzle for you. This is the type of puzzle someone might find on a scholastic logic test. Here we go:

Originally Posted by Logic Test

Scientists tell us that an X increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a corresponding Y increase in global temperature (known as "CO2 forcing"). During the PETM, an X increase in atmospheric CO2 was recorded, while a Y+5 temperature increase was discovered. Please choose the following incorrect statement:

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.

Please identify the correct answer. You should not find this hard. You should also find this helpful in identifying the serious logic flaw in your argument.

b) suggesting that other mechanisms may in fact be a larger contributor than what we would have expected based on our CO2 forcing calculations and...

But...we already know there are currently other mechanisms which are not based on CO2 forcing. I repeat: CO2 forcing accounts for CO2, not other warming mechanisms which may be present. Many of these other mechanisms are more dominant than CO2 from a GHG perspective. Some of these may be ongoing concerns, just like CO2 (e.g. CFCs/methane); others may be of concern from a sudden-release perspective (e.g. methane via methane cathrate release). Methane clathrates for example have been hypothesized by some people to explain the PETM carbon jump and would have contributed a corresponding methane boost, and are an ongoing concern right now - it's entirely possible that they are the reason for the PETM jump and thus we have already identified the "other mechanisms". We don't know and it's possible we may never know, given the massive changes on the Earth over the past 50-odd million years.

While we don't know what other mechanisms may have been present back then (e.g. ginormous farting animals!), we still know what CO2 is doing and will do right now. This study doesn't throw doubt on this fact in the slightest, and it's getting more and more amusing that you keep trying to say that it does.

c) may invalidate the taking of even greater preventative measures against global warming.

I don't altogether disagree with the conclusion, but I disagree with the way you reach it without articulating the necessary logic steps. Just to clearly state them:

Originally Posted by What you're actually saying

"Yes, CO2 forcing will cause the expected calculated temperature increase over the next several decades. However, we know that there are other mechanisms which may increase warming even further; some of these may even be 'triggered' by the temperature increase caused by CO2 forcing. There also may be other warming mechanisms which may have been present in the past but which we have not yet identified. Because of the potential for all these other mechanisms to greatly contribute to global warming, I feel that nothing should be done to lower CO2 output."

That's the only logical conclusion we can take away from the "proof" you've provided.

I maintain the only reason to have interpreted that study as you have is rigid adherence to CO2 dogma.

"CO2 dogma."

Considering that I have just conclusively pointed out that nothing you have presented thus far throws any negative light on our CO2 forcing knowledge...I'd say your rigid, dogmatic adherence to CO2 anti-dogma is the real concern here.

[The Final Shortcut]

I guess the point I've been hammering home since ebuddy brought up this study is: it indicates that global warming effects may be larger than what we currently predict.

That's it. That's what it says. So why on earth ebuddy would try to use it to attack "CO2 dogma" is completely beyond me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

I guess the point I've been hammering home since ebuddy brought up this study is: it indicates that global warming effects may be larger than what we currently predict.

... or may not.

These threads give me the sads.

All this effort expended on another in a series of "the sky is falling" reactionary predictions. Some people would be better served by being happy, getting on with their lives and admitting that they only know a tiny fraction of what effects our climate, and that history has shown that trying to predict disaster (requiring extreme behavior correction) has typically always been a failure. Even when using "accurate models" to do the predicting.

I think that's what ebuddy has been saying in a roundabout way.

:sigh:

[The Final Shortcut]

Your post does not take into the account the part where I said "this study". The study provided to, you know........somehow back up an anti-AGW stance.

Also: since history is also full of cases where people have

a) recognized disaster and changed their behaviour and thus averted this disaster, and
b) recognized disaster and did not change their behaviour and were subsequently visited with this disaster...

....well....what's your point, again? I don't see anything wrong with choosing to say "it's not worth it", but that should be based on a reasoned decision - a pro/con list, if you will. In this case, it involves knowing something of what's taking place.

Your argument is based on a proud position of total ignorance. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that isn't the best way to make decisions.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... history has shown that trying to predict disaster (requiring extreme behavior correction) has typically always been a failure. Even when using "accurate models" to do the predicting.

I'd be interested to see some examples of this history.

[mattyb]

How about this one : Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[The Final Shortcut]

Second sentence:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.

Like talking to a brick wall.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

How about this one : Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. Of course, twenty years from now history will be re-written to state that the idea of a oncoming global warming disaster "had little support in the scientific community" as well in regards to all the predictions made in the 90's and early to mid-2000's - despite being told at the time that their was total consensus among the scientific community that temperatures would get hotter and hotter resulting in disaster ... until they didn't, and now we have "climate change" instead of "global warming."

Howzabout we point to a climate disaster that was predicted based on models, that came to fruition, that could have been stopped via human intervention?

The devastating effects of global cooling in the 70's? The disaster that befell on us from "acid rain" in the early 80's? What about the scorching temperatures and natural disasters that were supposed to have upon us by now based on predictions from the early 90's in regards to global warming? How about non-climate disasters like overpopulation? I really can't think of any dire prediction made by scientists which ended up coming true that we could have stopped. Maybe I missed a few.

The fact is that taken in context, we know a minute amount about all the factors that effect climate. Trying to make predictions with so little knowledge is not likely going to bear usable fruit. Yet, we keep seeing the same efforts being made time and again only to result in failure. This is the very definition of a "crying wolf" scenario. At some point, reasonable people stop listening to the cries. Even though a wolf really may be lurking. Right now, there's really no proof of a "wolf" so people should stop trying to scare people with wolves.

[The Final Shortcut]

Holy ****ing shit. Are you trying to be this thickheaded?

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Second sentence:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.

Like talking to a brick wall.

There's no "re-writing" at all.

Also - hilarious point to acid rain. That's one of the potential disasters that we actually did something about and took steps to address - and it worked. Go look it up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

There's no "re-writing" at all.

Yep. Pretty much is. We were told exactly the same things about cooling that we were told about warming. It was "popular" because many people believed it, based on how "scientists" with an agenda where manipulating the data. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember all of the news stories quoting scientists, causing alarm. Of course, many scientists who didn't have an agenda did not support the wild conclusions just like many scientists today do not support the alarmist predictions made by those who insisted that if we didn't participate in things like Kyoto we'd all be toast by now. But just like the "deniers" of the 70's who now are considered the mainstream in hindsight, those in the future who want to cry "wolf" will try and marginalize those who made dire predictions and say that mainstream scientists never supported the wild claims we've been subjected to, but the current impending doom is assured by all right minded person of intelligence. This sort of appeal to experience/popularity fallacy, then a re-writing of history has a long pattern.:

“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....

[The Final Shortcut]

Guess I got suckered into trying to discuss this with you again. Against reason, proof, and hard logic, your inevitable reply is "nuh uh." Pretty tough to argue with someone who has zero morals about lying through their teeth or using anything approaching logical reasoning.

Carry on then.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Guess I got suckered into trying to discuss this with you again. Against reason, proof, and hard logic, your inevitable reply is "nuh uh."

...the pot says to the kettle.

A quote from Wikipedia which goes against most all other evidence, isn't "reason, proof, and hard logic" by any measure. If "reason, proof, and hard logic" is what keeps getting us these phony predictions of doom, I'll take "nuh uh" supported by decades of first hand eye-witness experience any day.

Pretty tough to argue with someone who has zero morals about lying through their teeth or using anything approaching logical reasoning.

Carry on then.

This post made me rollly eyed AND gave me the sads!

[The Final Shortcut]

A quote from Wikipedia which goes against most all other evidence, isn't "reason, proof, and hard logic" by any measure.

What "other evidence"? You haven't provided jack shit.

Your claims about global cooling have been utterly and thoroughly proven completely false in this Pol Lounge...ohh...I'd guess at least once a year for the past 5 or 6 years.

You keep at it, though. Keep spreading your ignorance and hypocrisy.

[olePigeon]

I'm just going to chalk this one down as people who are clearly ignorant of how science is done. It's difficult to form an argument about a subject in which one side clearly has no knowledge.

Here's a preemptive answer to eBuddy and stupendousman, now that I'm fairly certain I know from where they get most of their "evidence."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

What "other evidence"? You haven't provided jack shit.

So direct quotes from scientists and Life magazine made in the era in question, in regards to what they believed was true based on scientific consensus (in areas besides just global cooling) isn't "jack shit" but a un-moderated online self-published opinion quoting no one, decades later and not showing any historical perspective is "evidence." Really?

Maybe we've figured out where the problem lies.

I'm adding a frustrated headbutt to you guys. You can do better!

[The Final Shortcut]

The fact that you've been around here for so many years and still can't comprehend the difference between "scientific consensus" and "quotes from a scientist and Life magazine" is truly sad.

[Athens]

All we know is that the Earth is warming up (cause and reasons are debatable) I personally think its part of the natural warming process and at best human activity is just speeding it along a bit and that we as a people are not going to scale back our contribution to the warming any time soon so we better just learn to adapt to the situation.

I care more about reducing pollution and harmful emissions from a personal health stand point over saving the planet. If we could reduce the amount of Air Pollution in and around our cities, the benefits to peoples health would be pretty quick. Probably won't do much for cooling the planet. The focus should be on how to improve the immediate health of people not the global status of the planet.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

The fact that you've been around here for so many years and still can't comprehend the difference between "scientific consensus" and "quotes from a scientist and Life magazine" is truly sad.

I CAN.

The point is that "scientific consensus" is always claimed when outrageous predictions are offered, as was the case with the quoted subjects, and all the dire claims that we'd be broiling by now unless drastic measures where enacted (which were not enacted.) It's a repeating pattern.

Since you are incapable of seeing clear patterns, and can't comprehend the misuse of "scientific consensus" as a logically fallacious appeal to authority, I'm giving your response the goggly eye treatment.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I care more about reducing pollution and harmful emissions from a personal health stand point over saving the planet. If we could reduce the amount of Air Pollution in and around our cities, the benefits to peoples health would be pretty quick. Probably won't do much for cooling the planet. The focus should be on how to improve the immediate health of people not the global status of the planet.

This.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I CAN.

The point is that "scientific consensus" is always claimed when outrageous predictions are offered...

You realize this statement is both contradictory and makes absolutely no sense, right?

No? No, you don't realize that?

Oh. Right.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Originally Posted by Athens

I care more about reducing pollution and harmful emissions from a personal health stand point over saving the planet. If we could reduce the amount of Air Pollution in and around our cities, the benefits to peoples health would be pretty quick. Probably won't do much for cooling the planet. The focus should be on how to improve the immediate health of people not the global status of the planet.

This.

Basically, if Rush Limbaugh told you to reduce pollution and harmful emissions not because of global warming, you'd do it. I guess that's a start.

It's odd because it goes back to what I said before. I can understand why you'd argue over the solutions, or how it might impact our economy, or perhaps how it might impact your way of life. I can understand why people would be angry over government being so intrusive and telling them what they can and can't do. I'd rather politicians and talk show hosts argue over the appropriate solution rather than whether or not there's a problem. They attack something they don't understand, then assume that just because they don't understand how it works, that it mustn't work at all.

When there's a hurricane, no one argues about whether or not the hurricane happened. There're political sh*t storms about how an administration handled it, but not about if there was a hurricane that cause the problem.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. It's a shame politics has distorted science into something it isn't, and that people remain so willfully ignorant for political and/or religious reasons.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

No? No, you don't realize that?

I am incapable of realizing figments of your imagination. I'll leave that to you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Basically, if Rush Limbaugh told you to reduce pollution and harmful emissions not because of global warming, you'd do it. I guess that's a start.

This is why some people aren't worth debating. Many would rather just debate figments of their imagination, instead of real people whose opinions have little bearing on their displayed hallucinations.

They attack something they don't understand, then assume that just because they don't understand how it works, that it mustn't work at all.

The problem lies with people who BELIEVE that they understand exactly "how it works," but only are able to grasp but a sliver of the knowledge needed to truly master the subject at hand, then suggesting that that sliver of understanding is enough to compel others who would interpret the knowledge in a different way to act in a manner that wouldn't be very productive.

This one makes me sleepy.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Basically, if Rush Limbaugh told you to reduce pollution and harmful emissions not because of global warming, you'd do it. I guess that's a start.

It's odd because it goes back to what I said before. I can understand why you'd argue over the solutions, or how it might impact our economy, or perhaps how it might impact your way of life. I can understand why people would be angry over government being so intrusive and telling them what they can and can't do. I'd rather politicians and talk show hosts argue over the appropriate solution rather than whether or not there's a problem. They attack something they don't understand, then assume that just because they don't understand how it works, that it mustn't work at all.

When there's a hurricane, no one argues about whether or not the hurricane happened. There're political sh*t storms about how an administration handled it, but not about if there was a hurricane that cause the problem.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. It's a shame politics has distorted science into something it isn't, and that people remain so willfully ignorant for political and/or religious reasons.

Science is not a exact science. Its a evolution. What is accepted as fact one day maybe be disproven tomorrow and new facts are created or old facts are enhanced. Good science is intended to be challenged, it is the only way it evolves. The accumulation of knowledge is what is important. And what is done with this knowledge is important.

[The Final Shortcut]

Well congrats, you've written the introductory paragraph for a grade 11 textbook.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Science is not a exact science. Its a evolution. What is accepted as fact one day maybe be disproven tomorrow and new facts are created or old facts are enhanced. Good science is intended to be challenged, it is the only way it evolves. The accumulation of knowledge is what is important. And what is done with this knowledge is important.

And, this is might be why so many conservative thinkers don't like Science; if "conservative" is the "preservations of existing conditions", Science is UNconservative. The ability through scientific methodology to question and invalidate things previously considered to be fact appears to be anathema to the way some people seem to be able to think.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, this is might be why so many conservative thinkers don't like Science

I don't know of any conservative thinkers who don't like Science. That's another "figment" that gets bandied around. What conservative thinkers don't like are people who in the NAME OF SCIENCE, claim that they have all the answers with only a sliver of the information necessary to be able to come up with them.

It's not "science" that they don't like. It's people who try to distort science to meet their personal political goals. That's intellectually dishonest.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't know of any conservative thinkers who don't like Science. That's another "figment" that gets bandied around. What conservative thinkers don't like are people who in the NAME OF SCIENCE, claim that they have all the answers with only a sliver of the information necessary to be able to come up with them.

It's not "science" that they don't like. It's people who try to distort science to meet their personal political goals. That's intellectually dishonest.

Do you honestly believe that there aren't people with significant capital and political interests that would be threatened should it be proven that human activities are damaging the planet? Do you honestly believe that these people wouldn't do anything to preserve the status quo, including distort the science to meet their personal goals?

Also, could you outline your definition of "science"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm just going to chalk this one down as people who are clearly ignorant of how science is done. It's difficult to form an argument about a subject in which one side clearly has no knowledge.

Here's a preemptive answer to eBuddy and stupendousman, now that I'm fairly certain I know from where they get most of their "evidence."

You've not addressed me at all. Your article claims that; "yes, all the money (7billion in new spending) is going to the industries of alternative energy, not the scientists." My problem has never been with the scientists themselves or their studies, but of the industry that necessitates an establishment and related tribalism among a vocal few, well-endowed zealots.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do you honestly believe that there aren't people with significant capital and political interests that would be threatened should it be proven that human activities are damaging the planet?

I believe that there are, just as I honestly believe that there are people with significant capital, political and career interests that would be threatened if it can't be proven that human activities are damaging the planet in ways that would make a considerable difference in our way of life.

Do you honestly believe that these people wouldn't do anything to preserve the status quo, including distort the science to meet their personal goals?

No. The problem is that you apparently can only see one side of the equation. I can see both.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe that there are, just as I honestly believe that there are people with significant capital, political and career interests that would be threatened if it can't be proven that human activities are damaging the planet in ways that would make a considerable difference in our way of life.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do you honestly believe that these people wouldn't do anything to preserve the status quo, including distort the science to meet their personal goals?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No.

So, you believe that some people will do anything to push an environmental agenda (which I agree with), but not to preserve existing profit margins?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that you apparently can only see one side of the equation.

Based on what assumption? I've already stated here that I haven't made a decision on what I believe to be true regarding the degree of human impact on climate changing.

I do, however, find your position on science here to be rather interesting. You seem to think that science is flawed if previous theories are replaced by newer ones that more closely fit the evolving understanding. If I'm wrong, could you outline your definition of "science"?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you believe that some people will do anything to push an environmental agenda (which I agree with), but not to preserve existing profit margins?

No. I believe both to be the case.

I do, however, find your position on science here to be rather interesting. You seem to think that science is flawed if previous theories are replaced by newer ones that more closely fit the evolving understanding.

You are wrong. I already stated my problem is with people who refer to themselves as "scientists" in order to push their agenda and distort what can be observed to fit their preconceived ideas, and not Science itself. I posted a whole slew of quotes from them illustrating this, and we heard all through the 90's from "scientists" how we'd be broiling in our our juices by now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are wrong. I already stated my problem is with people who refer to themselves as "scientists"

Like Life magazine?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are wrong. I already stated my problem is with people who refer to themselves as "scientists" in order to push their agenda and distort what can be observed to fit their preconceived ideas, and not Science itself.

And, do you agree that there areeople on both sides of this issue who refer to themselves as "scientists" in order to push their agenda and distort what can be observed to fit their preconceived ideas?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do you honestly believe that there aren't people with significant capital and political interests that would be threatened should it be proven that human activities are damaging the planet? Do you honestly believe that these people wouldn't do anything to preserve the status quo, including distort the science to meet their personal goals?

Also, could you outline your definition of "science"?

Of course human activity is damaging the planet. This is a obvious and fact. The problem is the issue of what to do about it. We simply can not turn the clock of time and go back to a pre-industrial population of only a few million to correct the situation. So we need to adapt. Our failure to adapt will be our undoing and the planet will recover on its own when we are gone. Environmentalists are pretty retarded though when it comes to practical solutions to the problems. Our system of economics and economy also don't really allow much in the way of preventing damage either as the fundamental requirements above all else is creating profit. When the penalty for pollution is lessor then the cost of not polluting economics demand we pollute and work the fine into the price of doing business if caught.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Like Life magazine?

Life quoted what they were told by scientists. Are you accusing them of lying?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't know of any conservative thinkers who don't like Science. That's another "figment" that gets bandied around. What conservative thinkers don't like are people who in the NAME OF SCIENCE, claim that they have all the answers with only a sliver of the information necessary to be able to come up with them.

It's not "science" that they don't like. It's people who try to distort science to meet their personal political goals. That's intellectually dishonest.

It seems to me that conservatives are just very very attached to their opinions, values and lifestyle choices. 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."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Life quoted what they were told by scientists. Are you accusing them of lying?

Do you know who the scientists were that Life was quoting? Do you know the context of the article in question? Do you even know the *title* of the article in question? Do you think that sometimes there might be scientists who hold ideas that are not agreed to by the general scientific community in that field? Or, do you think that every scientist in every field has the same thoughts and ideas as every other scientist in every other field?

I wonder ... have you even *read* anything from this Life article in question beyond the one sentence you've pasted here, or are you just regurgitating someone else's argument?
Earth Day 2010 Special: 15 spectacularly stupid predictions from the first Earth Day | Louis Hissink's Crazy World

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Or...to put it another way...the observed CO2 rise was sufficient to explain only some of the observed warming.

Here, let me put it yet another way for you: the observed CO2 rise would have caused some of the warming - in fact, it would have caused 1-3.5 degrees of warming based on accepted calculations. Just like an observed CO2 rise today will cause a certain calculated temperature increase. It would not have accounted for the additional warming observed.

Please think about that for a while, because you don't seem to understand the implications of what you're writing. Then, consider why I made the following statement:

But...we already know there are currently other mechanisms which are not based on CO2 forcing. I repeat: CO2 forcing accounts for CO2, not other warming mechanisms which may be present. Many of these other mechanisms are more dominant than CO2 from a GHG perspective. Some of these may be ongoing concerns, just like CO2 (e.g. CFCs/methane); others may be of concern from a sudden-release perspective (e.g. methane via methane cathrate release). Methane clathrates for example have been hypothesized by some people to explain the PETM carbon jump and would have contributed a corresponding methane boost, and are an ongoing concern right now - it's entirely possible that they are the reason for the PETM jump and thus we have already identified the "other mechanisms". We don't know and it's possible we may never know, given the massive changes on the Earth over the past 50-odd million years.

While we don't know what other mechanisms may have been present back then (e.g. ginormous farting animals!), we still know what CO2 is doing and will do right now. This study doesn't throw doubt on this fact in the slightest, and it's getting more and more amusing that you keep trying to say that it does.

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. We know from deep-sea sediment cores that a great warming event occurred 55 MYA. This was among the primary factors for determining this period as a suitable analogue. This study set out to measure carbon and related pCO2 levels in order to employ presently-understood calculations on the known warming event. Now in this case the lion's share of CO2 output was produced by oceanic methane hydrates, (a result of warming btw and doesn't make preposterous the idea of a warmer pre-PETM climate) but nonetheless, the conclusion is;

1. CO2 alone is insufficient to explain the 5–9 °C rise in global surface temperature; there must've been other mechanisms at play. Major contributors or in Zeebe's words; "substantial". We know that a strong water vapour feedback in the tropics and a positive shortwave cloud feedback in the subtropics is certainly plausible for example, but to what degree? 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.
2. Many factors contribute to warming, a subsequent increase in CO2 output, and additional warming. The warming does not have to begin exclusively with increased levels of CO2 (correlative vs causal) and the CO2 calculations do not presently account for the warming event being used as an analogue. 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.
3. it's a cop out for you to claim "massive changes on the Earth over the past 50-odd million years" and claim the study "only considers CO2 and related calculations, not other warming mechanisms which may be present". Given the surprising inadequacy of the forcing calculations to account for the warming, the other mechanisms are begged by the evidence. After all, the conclusion from the evidence could simply be a measure of climate sensitivity to natural variability during the PETM.
4. I can see how interpreting the evidence as you have is a no-lose proposition. I mean... if their calculations had been correct after all, EUREKA! But because they're wrong by a great margin; EUREKA! IT'S EVEN WORSE! Zeebe repeatedly expresses uncertainty, it'd be refreshing if some would give more than a second's consideration for the cause of this uncertainty; a science in its infancy.
5. While the results may have been surprising to those with the CO2-horrors presupposition, it is not surprising to a great many other scientists and experts who believe too much is being made of a science in its infancy.

[The Final Shortcut]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm accusing you of being completely ignorant as to what a "scientific consensus" is.

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.

You quote Life Magazine, a news publication. Although you haven't bothered to provide us with the actual article, we can surmise that it quotes no more than a handful of scientists at best. And from that, you somehow extrapolate to conclude this:

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The point is that "scientific consensus" is always claimed when outrageous predictions are offered...

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. It's an astonishing display of your lack of reading comprehension and logic skills, and complete lack of knowledge about the subject which you're trying to discuss.

None of which will stop you from continuing to input your loose change, of course.


I've said this to you before and I'll say it again: climate science in the 1970s was as advanced as cancer science in the 1950s or perhaps even AIDs research in the 1970s. Which is to say, an incredibly infantile version of the science that exists today. And yet, are you going around and pulling up quotes from scientists about cancer from the 1950s, or from scientists about AIDS in the 1970s or even 1980s? No. No, you're not. Because it would be patently ridiculous and you'd be laughed out of town, that's why.

Your feeble and ignorant attempts are just silly.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Well congrats, you've written the introductory paragraph for a grade 11 textbook.

Rule 9.

[The Final Shortcut]

What sort of bullshit is that? Rule 9? That is the most ****ing bullshit post I've ever seen on this forum, Cold Warrior.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This is why some people aren't worth debating. Many would rather just debate figments of their imagination, instead of real people whose opinions have little bearing on their displayed hallucinations.

Cold Warrior, I suppose your next post will be another "Rule 9" post with a thumbs down? I'll wait for it.

Your complete lack of judgment in picking my post to make that comment is astounding.