Very interesting 80~minute film on the science and politics of climate change. It decidedly puts forward the sceptical case, that global warming is a real phenomenon but has nothing to do with human activity and CO2, that the Sun is actually responsible for it, that there's a ~conspiracy~ to keep developing countries shitty and dependent and all sorts of other exciting things... I am currently watching part 6 of 8.
Youtube Link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related&search=
It was shown on (I think) Channel 4 (UK) last week, and is being shown again on More4 at 22:00, tonight.
I am Al Gore and I disapprove of the ideas put forth in the post above.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Whwgq3Y59WE&mode=related&search=
They talk about Al Gore and his film in this bit.
The effects of the sun on the atmosphere are well known and are taken into account by climate scientists.
Sure, global warming might be a natural process that has nothing to do with us, and it might not affect our continued existence on Earth at all.
But do you want to take that chance?
Better safe then sorry, I say.
>>5
Your assessment should also take into account the risks of stopping the use of fossil fuels etc.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
A comment on the above:
> I haven't seen the show, but if it's true that they present the cooling from the 1940s-1970s as a mysterious flaw in the anthropogenic-global-warming hypothesis, that's remarkably dishonest. It's also remarkable that they're still pushing the supposed discrepancy between surface and tropospheric warming not long after the last major piece of evidence for that was explained away as a math error.
To steal somebody else's line, that's probably about as risky as when we stopped using child labour in industries.
And >>5, there's no scientific debate about whether "global warming might be a natural process that has nothing to do with us". Everybody who actually knows about climate and studies it know that this is not the case.
The "controversy" exists only in the media, not in the science.
>>6, those risks are only economic, no?
Suppose a worst-case scenario where the world economy takes hundreds of years to recover; isn't that better than making ourselves extinct?
>>8, I understand there actually are a few climate scientists who don't agree as to the extent of global warming's effects. Keep in mind, the majority is not always right, especially not in science, and it can be hard to get funding for politically unpopular research. That said, I think it's definitely these skeptics who have the burden of proof.
I haven't watched this video yet, but will next time I get 80 minutes.
"Few" being the operative word. Those who disagree are simply very loud, and tend to seek out the media who like to report controversies.
Among the vast, vast majority, the question is not whether global warming exists, because it is well known that it does, nor whether it is caused by man, because it is well known that it is, but rather whether it is already too late to do anything about it. At least this is what actual climate scientists tell me (as opposed to the media circus).
And remember, it is hard to get funding for research into the geocentric model of the universe too. This does not mean we need to keep an "open mind" about it.
>>11 Among the vast, vast majority, the question is not whether global warming exists, because it is well known that it does, nor whether it is caused by man, because it is well known that it is,
Bullshit.
Which part is bullshit? Can you point me to a sizable group of climatologists who would disagree with my statement?
> if there is no debate, it's not science.
Now, this is the bullshit. How much debate is there that the Earth orbits the Sun? Is it "not science" because nobody is "debating" this?
Science is not about opinions or debate. Science is about facts.
Does anyone else find it odd that these climatologists can't tell me whether it will rain a month from today, but they know that the Earth's temperature will rise by 2.3 degrees over the next 100 years?
Here are some other predictions of O NOES IMMINENT DISASTER, TEH END IS NIGH, REPENT! from the usual suspects:
-----
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
Here's an environmentalist quote that I find absolutely fascinating:
"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..." --Steven Schneider of the so-called "National Center for Atmospheric Research," which is a political lobbying organziation that does no actual research
Envirowackos have absolutely zero regard for objective truth. Everything that comes out of their mouths is to push their radical reactionary political agenda, to bring society back to some idyllic pre-electricity, pre-technology past that never was, where everybody stood around and sung "Kumbaya" and no one interfered with the habitat of the Endangered Farting Lousefly by tilling the soil to grow food.
I believe NOTHING they say. Not one word, not even "a," "an," or "the." They LIE.
> Does anyone else find it odd that these climatologists can't tell me whether it will rain a month from today, but they know that the Earth's temperature will rise by 2.3 degrees over the next 100 years?
Not at all. I can't tell you the exact speed and direction of every little eddy in a river, but that doesn't stop me from knowing that all the water in the river is going to end up in the sea.
This is only odd if you're trying hard to blind yourself to reality.
> from the usual suspects:
Please elaborate why the people quoted are relevant when talking about the opinions of the entire scientific field of climatology.
If you just dig hard enough, you can find people saying any dumb thing. What makes these people "the usual suspects"?
> Envirowackos
You should not be listening to them in the first place. You should be listening to scientists. And they all say global warming is real and very dangerous.
>>>> Does anyone else find it odd that these climatologists can't tell me whether it will rain a month from today, but they know that the Earth's temperature will rise by 2.3 degrees over the next 100 years?
>>Not at all. I can't tell you the exact speed and direction of every little eddy in a river, but that doesn't stop me from knowing that all the water in the river is going to end up in the sea.
>>This is only odd if you're trying hard to blind yourself to reality.
Bullshit. I'm not asking about every little eddy. I'm asking whether it's GOING TO FUCKING RAIN. Yes or no. If they can't predict climate one month in advance, how is it that they can predict climate a century in advance? Someone's in denial here. Someone's got a religious faith in DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM, we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED. A hundred years ago you would have been one of those nuts with a sandwich board sign strapped to your chest that says "REPENT, THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH," ringing a bell and annoying people on street corners.
Remember, kiddies. Any evidence, apocryphal, anecdotal, or made-up that supports the "global warming idea," supports it.
Any data that has no bearing on it, supports it.
Any objective, empirically derived scientific data which contradicts it is a test of faith, which means that more studies and more funding are needed. (Cha-ching!) Quick, "renormalize" the data!
And anyone who disagrees is "trying to blind himself to reality" and therefore unfit to have an opinion.
>>You should not be listening to them in the first place. You should be listening to scientists. And they all say global warming is real and very dangerous.
"Scientists" like Steven Schneider, amirite?
This isn't science because there is no data, and there is no way to test these DOOOOOOOOOOOOM claims empirically. If it can't be empirically tested, it doesn't even rise to the level of being a hypothesis. There's only speculation, and it's completely politicized. When you can tell me daily global and local average temperatures for the last 10,000 years down to 1/10 degree, then maybe we can speculate about climate trends. Until then, we have nothing but a bunch of loud kooks spouting pseudoscience and pushing a radical political agenda.
> Bullshit. I'm not asking about every little eddy. I'm asking whether it's GOING TO FUCKING RAIN.
Whether it rains or not is exactly one little chaotic eddy in the bigger system of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how much you yell about it, this basic fact is not going to change.
Let me ask you, if we can't predict if it's going to rain next month, does this mean we absolutely can't say whether it's going to snow next winter in the north?
> "Scientists" like Steven Schneider, amirite?
Scientists like scientists. This is not some personal cult, and I have no idea who the hell that is you're talking about. You seem to be terribly worked up into some kind of us-versus-them attitude here, which is frankly pretty ridiculous. You're not showing any sign of being interested in facts, just personal attacks and your own superiority.
So let's keep it to the science here, and leave the personal issues out of it, OK?
> This isn't science because there is no data, and there is no way to test these DOOOOOOOOOOOOM claims empirically.
We aren't testing it right now?
>>18
...so, you can't answer my points, then?
They have been answered again and again, and I see no reason to do so one more time, as you're showing no sign that you will accept any criticism of them. You're far too wrapped up in name calling and grandstanding to listen. If you were ready to listen, you would most likely have listened already.
If I am wrong and you are actually willing to learn something, I suggest doing some reading on the subject somewhere other than political websites. http://realclimate.org/ is generally considered a very good resource.
I could also show you a simple mathematical example of how a chaotic system can be entirely unpredictable in the short term, but have easily predicatble long-term trends, but that would actually take some work to prepare, and before I do that, I'd really like to have some indication that you are actually interested in learning something from that and that I would not be wasting my time. Can you give me that?
More specifically: Look through ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/ for things that seem to be of interest, and read them.
A quick glance finds this, which seems very relevant to your arguments: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/
Also, it looks like there's no need for me to do what I suggested in >>21, as realcliamte has done it for us here, much better than I could:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
Was that all? No more snarky comebacks? No more personal attacks?
So, you have nothing at all except more DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM propaganda from the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE who were fearmongering about an impending Ice Age thirty years ago?
Well, I've observed global warming in my area. We had about a month of cold weather in st. louis. December averaged 70 degrees, and two months later we're back at 70 degree weather.
There's no way that this is a normal weather pattern. I'm not saying doomed, I like warmer weather. I'm just saying the 70' in december in the midwest ain't normal.
> Now, this is the bullshit. How much debate is there that the Earth orbits the Sun? Is it "not science" because nobody is "debating" this?
actually, according to general relativity, it's just as valid to say that the sun orbits the earth as it is to say that the earth orbits the sun.
> Science is not about opinions or debate. Science is about facts.
science is about determining what is fact through research and debate, not simply asserting opinions as fact and claiming that any ideas that don't agree with your opinions are "bullshit".
> actually, according to general relativity, it's just as valid to say that the sun orbits the earth as it is to say that the earth orbits the sun.
That is a completely irrelevant argument.
> science is about determining what is fact through research and debate, not simply asserting opinions as fact and claiming that any ideas that don't agree with your opinions are "bullshit".
Through research, yes, but not through "debate". Theories are suggested, tested, and falsified (or not). Rhethoric never enters into it, and neither do opinions.
> Well, I've observed global warming in my area.
That's not really the case. Extreme weather conditions like this warm winter can't really be attributed directly to global warming as such. To once again get back to realclimate.org:
As we are fond of reminding our readers, one cannot attribute a specific meteorological event, an anomalous season, or even (as seems may be the case here, depending on the next 2 months) two anomalous seasons in a row, to climate change. Moreover, not even the most extreme scenario for the next century predicts temperature changes over North America as large as the anomalies witnessed this past month.
So did you actually read any of the provided links yet?
> That is a completely irrelevant argument.
then why did you bring it up?
and actually it's not all that irrelevant. you presented your opinion as fact, just like you're doing with global warming.
> Through research, yes, but not through "debate". Theories are suggested, tested, and falsified (or not). Rhethoric never enters into it, and neither do opinions.
and just how are we supposed to determine whether or not a theory has been falsified, if not through debate?
also, how do you explain things like http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073 and http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=851?
> then why did you bring it up?
I did not. I was speaking of the geocentric vs. heliocentric view of the universe, and I was hoping that people would understand the context. The fact that general relativity can be constructed in rotational reference frames really has no bearing whatsoever on that argument, and certainly does not in any way confirm the geocentric view of the universe, which you would have to imply for your argument to make any sense.
> and just how are we supposed to determine whether or not a theory has been falsified, if not through debate?
By performing experiments that show that the predictions of a theory do not hold? This is not "debate".
> also, how do you explain things like http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073 and http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=851?
First, I do not bother reading about science on political websites.
As for the articles, I see nothing whatsoever about science in the first one. It's just complaining about the media circus, which it might be confusing with actual science. It's hard to tell, because it's obviously pushing an agenda itself.
The second one names a few papers, but without knowing the context of those I have no idea if their conclusions are at all reasonable (and one is led to suspect that they aren't, because once again they are pushing their own agenda). A quick search through realclimate finds no obvious references to that, so barring a statement by an actual scientist I have no opinions on that.
It also talks about satellite records, but the only source for this is a person at a "conservative think-tank", so that is not exactly science.
> if their conclusions are at all reasonable
how exactly would you determine that scientifically?
i don't think the conclusion that global warming is occurring is reasonable based on the evidence that i've seen.
> It also talks about satellite records, but the only source for this is a person at a "conservative think-tank",
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward."
> how exactly would you determine that scientifically?
I would not, I do not have the competence. I would go with what the actual scientists say, as I have been doing so far.
> i don't think the conclusion that global warming is occurring is reasonable based on the evidence that i've seen.
And you haven't seen even a tiny sliver of the evidence, because you are not a climate scientist. So? How much evidence have you seen that general relativity is correct? Plate tectonics? Evolution? Do you not believe those either?
> http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
Note that that webpage is ten years old. The science has not been standing still for all that time. And from what I can tell from current discussions, the lack of warming was a misinterpretation of the data. Some related discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
To highlight the conclusion:
Since the satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models...
> And you haven't seen even a tiny sliver of the evidence, because you are not a climate scientist.
actually i am, but that's completely irrelevant.
> How much evidence have you seen that general relativity is correct? Plate tectonics?
quite a bit, actually.
> Evolution?
i'm reserving judgment on that one until i see some real scientific evidence for or against it.
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
so a liberal think-tank claims that nasa misinterpreted the data and i should just believe them?
also, i notice that they don't say exactly what the problem was or how it was fixed and the only reliable sources they refer to are 404'd.
> liberal think-tank
Where are you seeing a liberal think-tank, now?
PS:
>> because you are not a climate scientist.
> actually i am
In that case, what have you published?
> realclimate.org
I'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense for why it is either "liberal" or a "think-tank".
Here, let me quote the site introduction for you:
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
If you are going to claim they are lying when they write this, please provide some proof.
> i prefer to remain anonymous on anonymous boards.
> and like i said before, it's completely irrelevant.
Than you should not have mentioned it. As it stands now, I will assume you are lying.
>i'm reserving judgment on that one until i see some real scientific evidence for or against it.
Okay this is going to be a little off topic, but how can you be on the fence about evolution? Evolution, on the micro scale is a fact. If evolution did not occur, then we would have eradicated disease a long time ago, because the bacteria that are responsible for the diarrhea which causes mortality in children, would have become extinct as our immune systems learned to recognize the surface protein markers of bacteria and eradicated them before they could infect us. We would only catch the rhinovirus and influenza once in our lives. Outside of the microscopic world this still applies. DDT was not just phased out of use because of environmental debate, but also, most pest insects, including mosquitoes, have developed a resistance to DDT. Our modern pyrethroid insecticides as well, are also becoming more and more ineffective as the insects' immune systems evolve to defeat synthetic chemicals.
In addition, we have observed human artificial selection. People have bred the wold into the hundred of breeds recognized by the AKC, and Darwin created his theory of evolution partly based on observations of pidgeon breeders who bred the birds into different forms. This part is undeniable fact.
The part that is debated, is whether a new species can be created by evolution, that is speciation. This is highly implicated. Japanese snails have been observed with varying chirality of their shells, making it easier for right shelled snails to mate with right shelled females, and the same for left-shelled snails. In addition, separate "species" of Hawaiian drosophila, or fruit flies, are capable of making viable offspring, but strong behavioral barriers prevent interbreeding. In both these cases, it fairly clearly demonstrates that barriers to interbreeding can indeed evolve without making a species extinct, high implicating speciation as being of evolutionary origin.
> I'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense for why it is either "liberal" or a "think-tank".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=think%20tank
> think tank
> n. A group or an institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems, especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament.
i'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense that says that the purpose of that site is not "intensive research and solving of problems".
and "liberal" is obvious from the content of the articles.
> Than you should not have mentioned it. As it stands now, I will assume you are lying.
i only mentioned it because you claimed that i wasn't.
you're free to assume whatever you want. just don't expect anyone else to accept your incorrect assumptions.
> Okay this is going to be a little off topic, but how can you be on the fence about evolution?
i know several biologists who are skeptical of what you call speciation. the reasons they give for their skepticism seem valid to me, but i'm not a biologist.
Although it is true that global climate change is the result of eccentricity, obliquity and variation in the tilt of the earth's poles, the thing is, so-called greenhouse gases are of concern, because we know that gases in the atmosphere cause energy to be "trapped". The earth tilting to absorb more radiation in a concentrated area from the sun (the cosine law), as well as an orbit which places the earth closer to the sun leads to a rise in temperature. However, to deny that gases in the atmosphere have any effect on earth's climate is silly.
Gases like all matter, react differently to radioactive energy. For example, if a gas appears dark, we know it is absorbing a lot of the light spectra. If you ever harvested salt using seawater and black construction paper on a hot day, you know that dark colors tend to absorb light, and transmit it as heat (as there is always energy "loss" emission as various other em waves) Gases, like all matter can also reflect or transmit em waves as well. Ozone is probably one well accepted gas that has the effect of reflecting much of the harmful radiation in the atmosphere, as well as absorbing the earth's reflected rays. Greenhouse gases work similarly; they absorb even more of the earth's reflected rays. Because of the laws of thermodynamics energy in must be equal to energy out, as energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. So, the CO2 molecules must re-emit the radiation in some form, usually lower energy, and at the low energy end, below the light spectra (which is the spectra the sun primarily emits) is infared, or heat. In essence, the greenhouse gases tend to trap energy in the atmosphere longer, leading to a rise in temperature. (The energy does eventually escape) The most damning proof of this is to simply take a spectral image of the earth's emitted spectra, and compare it to that of a perfect black body of equivalent size. You will notice a spike at 10^3 micrometers, followed by a deep trough. This could not be caused by simple orbital patterns. Something is trapping the spectra above 10^3 micrometers.
Like what, exactly? If not speciation, there's really only one choice. God. And God, if anything is an even more difficult point to prove, let alone scientifically.
> i'd be interested in seeing any argument that makes the slightest bit of sense that says that the purpose of that site is not "intensive research and solving of problems".
> and "liberal" is obvious from the content of the articles.
Let me just quote the description of the site again, with some highlighting for the reading-impaired:
> RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
There is no research going on. No solving of problems. It's all commentary. Or are you claiming news agencies are engaged in politics, economics and sports when they report on these matters?
As for calling the content "liberal", are you seriously suggesting that reporting on science has a political slant? What is this, The Colbert Report? Does reality have a well known liberal bias? Or is it just that anybody who disagrees with you is automatically painted as a political opponent in your mind? This is why I doubt you are a scientist of any kind: You are mixing up science and politics, and that is something your average scientist is very wary of.
> i only mentioned it because you claimed that i wasn't.
And then you immediately claimed it was "irrelevant" just so that you wouldn't have to back it up. Obviously it was not irrelevant enough that you could just let it slide, huh?
So it's time for the good old line: Post proof or retract the claim.
To continue this train of thought, CO2 is only a small part of our atmosphere, even at projected levels, I believe estimates put CO2 level at .023% of the atmosphere. However, the thing is, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Methane, CH4, Nitrous Oxide N2O are also greenhouse gases, both primarily produced by ranching and farming, respectively. Given the population increase and increased needs of food, in addition to expansion of industry which produces CO2. However, if the absorbed reflected spectra is affected quite significantly by current levels, it should be reasonable to see that such effects might increase. Of course the question is, exactly, how much.
I thought this was a great program. I wish more people would see it. I've been sceptical of the global warming scare for a while now, and I clear and well-researched scientifically-sober explanation of the data is extremely refreshing.
It's funny how hysteria like this breaks out. And we consider ourselves a well-educated public. Hah!
Thanks for posting this!
>>46
if you actually look at the content of the site, you'll see that the description is hilariously inaccurate.
Unfortunately, the program is neither well-researched nor scientificall sober. I'll just repost the link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
I've look at the contents of the site, and it seems quite accurate. Or were you trying to say "if you look at the contents of the site, it disagrees with my opinions"?
Also, since you are not posting proof, should I take it you are retracting your claim of being a climate scientist?
> I've look at the contents of the site, and it seems quite accurate.
there's a lot more on that site than just "commentary".
>>52
links?
You're grasping at straws. Give it up, Mr. "Climate scientist".
Hey!!
I'm angry, I just read that this film uses all kinds of distorted, obsolete, and omitted data. What a let-down. This is totally dishonest and hypocritical. I wish the media would LEARN TO FACT-CHECK!!!!!
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2326210.ece
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
> "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
i lol'd
Well, if nothing else, the movie has been a good lesson in the kind of dishonesty involved in this debate, hasn't it?
>>41 Okay this is going to be a little off topic, but how can you be on the fence about evolution?
Surely you can't be shocked that a global warming zealot is scientifically illiterate.
http://www.earth4man.com/ has many very good articles about "acid rain," "global warming," "the hole in the ozone layer," and all the other phony doomsday fearmongering and propaganda we're being spoon-fed by the left-wing media on a daily basis.
Uh, the person who doesn't believe in evolution was an ANTI-global warming zealot, you know?
> http://www.earth4man.com/ has many very good articles
Very good they may be, but they're a bunch of op-ed without a single citation. This is the science board. Please post scientific articles.
I know, I know, but hey, might as well crush his ego on two different fronts.
>>60
Global Warming is junk science in the first place. It belongs on /politics/ rather than /science/ anyway.
Where you wish to attack it without the inconvenience of having to back up your claimns, no doubt.
Funny, you're going to have to back up that claim that it's junk science as well. Not easy, as the term "junk science" has no agreed-upon definition. Did you mean "research that does not meet the Daubert standard for science that can be used in United States federal courts?"
I'm pretty sure his definition of "junk science" is "in disagreement with my political prejudices".
Dude, those links are totally exaggerating. That only applies to the most radical environmental activists (who I agree are totally dangerous). Your average environmentalist on the other hand is just concerned with getting humans to live prosperously without doing irreparable damage to their environment. The mass industrialization is a young technology, if handled badly, it can do a lot of damage. We know this.
Just cause you believe in a sustainable means of exploiting your environment doesn't mean you're an anti-capitalist commie.
I'll repost that relevant quote:
"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..." --Steven Schneider
These are people who, thirty years ago, decided that the WORLD was COMING TO AN END, man! Because of CAPITALISM and POLLUTION, can you dig it? Down with AmeriKKKa, man!
What I'm saying here is that these people are fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago, that America is the Devil and the world is doomed by our sin--and if objective empirical truth makes them laughingstocks, they will just come up with another ad-hoc hypothesis, and another, and another, and another, and another, as many as are needed to keep pushing their lunatic-fringe political agenda.
Thirty years ago they were claiming that pollution was causing another Ice Age. They were wrong, and perhaps did not get the mockery they deserved. Now the very same people are claiming that something called "global warming" is taking place, still due to industrialization, still the fault of the evil, unspeakable West.
They are demonstrably unable to predict climate two weeks in advance, but they claim to be perfectly capable of predicting climate a century in advance. That this is preposterous on its face does not shame them a bit.
And if you want to get down to data, well, there's not a whole lot of data to be had here. The Earth is at least four and a half billion years old. We have detailed climate data (for tiny urbanized areas) going back, maybe, to World War I. There is additional information--not even data, really--derived from core drilling in glaciers and fossilized tree rings, which require a great many unsupported assumptions and ad-hoc hypotheses to give any information at all about what the Earth's climate was like, say, two thousand years ago. (Quick! Renormalize the data again!)
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
Here's some more data. To the miniscule extent that any accurate climate data at all exists for the 19th Century, there seems to have been a slight warming trend from 1800 to 1900. There is slightly more data for a slightly greater warming trend from 1900 to 1940, then more data for a rapid, measurable, significant drop in global temperatures until around 1975, then, depending upon who "renormalizes" the climate data, there may or may not be a barely-measurable rise in temperatures between then and the present day. Does any of this correlate at all with global industrialization? Well, no. Does any of this correlate at all with carbon dioxide emissions? Well, no.
More data yet: the single most significant absorber of infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere isn't carbon dioxide, which in fact absorbs very, very weakly, but water vapor, which not only absorbs infrared radiation far more strongly, but is also present in vastly higher concentrations, measured in multiple whole percentage points (varying considerably with local weather conditions, of course; Wikipedia suggests 3% as a reasonable ballpark figure), as compared to CO2 at four one hundredths of one percent. Quick, someone put tarps over the oceans!
The idea that we even know what is normal for the Earth is laughable. The idea that humanity's insignificant efforts are capable of affecting it are doubly so. No doubt when and as contradictory data piles up so high that the Steven Schneiders of the world can no longer ignore it, they'll next make the claim that building cities is changing the Earth's orbit, and we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED to a fiery decaying orbit into the Sun unless we go back to the caves. More studies are needed!
Finally, to be more serious, none of this fearmongering even rises to the level of being a hypothesis, because none of it makes any predictions that are empirically testable. Occam's Razor cuts anthropogenic climate change away and the null hypothesis holds until and unless there is empirical evidence that is not interpretable any other way.
> These are people who, thirty years ago, decided that the WORLD was COMING TO AN END, man!
Please provide quote of any significant portion of the entire field of cliamte science saying this thirty years ago.
> What I'm saying here is that these people are fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago
Are you saying an entire field of science is "fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago"?
> More data yet: the single most significant absorber of infrared radiation in the Earth's atmosphere isn't carbon dioxide, which in fact absorbs very, very weakly, but water vapor
Ok. By this same logic, a ten-meter rise in sea levels is totally insignificant, because the sea is over ten kilometers deep! A ten-meter rise is less than a tenth of a percent, and totally insignificant!
> The idea that we even know what is normal for the Earth is laughable.
You are projecting your own ignorance. Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody else does.
If anyone has latched onto an idea here, it's you. You're simply parroting old, old arguments that have been debunked again and again, but you refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support your own pre-conceived notion. And just what is your hangup with this "Steven Schneider" character?
>>Please provide quote of any significant portion of the entire field of cliamte science saying this thirty years ago.
Leaving aside that this is a field of politics, not science, scroll up and read >>14 and >>15 again, and you and your copy of "Hooked on Phonics" get back to us.
>>Are you saying an entire field of science is "fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago"?
No, because these are loud fearmongering kooks who get a lot of media coverage. This is politics, not science.
>>Ok. By this same logic, a ten-meter rise in sea levels is totally insignificant, because the sea is over ten kilometers deep! A ten-meter rise is less than a tenth of a percent, and totally insignificant!
Keep beating that strawman. Watch that straw fly!
The facts remain: water vapor makes up one hundred times as much of the Earth's atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Water vapor absorbs vastly more strongly in the infrared than carbon dioxide does. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water.
>>You are projecting your own ignorance.
No, I'm highlighting yours.
>>Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody else does.
Too bad the ones who claim to know can't even tell me whether it will rain two weeks from now, eh? And the same ones who claim to know were demonstrably, laughably wrong thirty years from now, but they're still riding that DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM hobbyhorse.
>>If anyone has latched onto an idea here, it's you.
I've latched on to the idea that objective truth is preferable to bullshit, yes. And I've latched onto the idea that fearmongers are not to be trusted with power.
>>You're simply parroting old, old arguments
I'm speaking the truth, which refuses to go away just because it is politically inconvenient for fearmongering extremists.
>>that have been debunked again and again,
By whom? Certainly not by you. In the scientific community there is considerable debate over whether there is enough evidence to support any of these claims, though it is politically incorrect to mention this.
Is this the part where you wave your hands vigorously and declare victory?
>>but you refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support your own pre-conceived notion
Listening to environmentalists was how I found those quotes.
>>And just what is your hangup with this "Steven Schneider" character?
He's a "leading environmentalist" who was wrong about Western Civilization DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING humanity by changing the climate thirty years ago, he's wrong today, and he comes right out and admits that it's all lies, fearmongering, and propaganda. "A balance between being effective and being honest," indeed. I never thought that honesty needed to be balanced with anything, especially when we're talking about objective scientific truth, especially when we're debating radical policies that would pretty much gut the whole of industrialized civilization.
Are you done now?
> Leaving aside that this is a field of politics, not science
> No, because these are loud fearmongering kooks who get a lot of media coverage. This is politics, not science.
We are on the science board. We discuss science. And this is most definitely science. What exactly do you think the field of climate science is doing? It does exist, you know.
Now please back up your statements with actual science. You claim that:
> I'm speaking the truth
> I've latched on to the idea that objective truth is preferable to bullshit
But I don't see you backing this up with any references to actual science or any kind of "objective truth". I have, repeatedly.
> Keep beating that strawman. Watch that straw fly!
Just because you do not understand the argument does not mean it is a strawman. The point is this: It does not matter what the total value is. What matters is what happens when you change it. If it is a balanced system, small changes can have big effects.
Your body's temperature is balanced at 310 kelvins. A tiny increase to 315 kelvins, and suddenly, you die. Did it really matter that the change was small compared to the total?
It's funny that you accuse me of making strawman arguments, when your own water vapour argument is a complete and utter strawman itself. As is this one:
> He's a "leading environmentalist" who was wrong about Western Civilization DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING humanity by changing the climate thirty years ago
Apparently your argument is that because some guy said something that was wrong thirty years ago, and entire field of science does not exist.
> By whom?
By scientists. I have provided an ample amount of links to read about this, but you are not interested in learning anything that goes against your prejudices, are you? You seem to be much more interested in ranting and raving, and certain don't seem to have actually read the earlier replies dealing with issues you repeat again now, such as:
> Too bad the ones who claim to know can't even tell me whether it will rain two weeks from now, eh?
See >>23.
Summary of >>70 for those who can't be bothered to read it:
On the science board we discuss science. If you want to make claims, back them up with references to actual science.
I think it's quite obvious that this thread is over.
--- snip here ---For a guy who claims to be interested in objective truth and not bullshit, you sure aren't.
You want to know something? I don't think we're DOOOOOMED. I might purely intellectually know there's a chance things will be bad, but deep down I don't believe it. I think everything will work out in the end because that's what it always does, and it's much more comforting to think that.
This doesn't mean I'm going to think every scientist who says different is a liar.
Oh, I've been talking about actual science. I've been talking about things like Occam's Razor, and the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the fact that extraordinary mass industrialization and increases in carbon dioxide levels worldwide between 1940 and 1975 coincided with measurable and significant decreases in global average temperatures for three and a half decades, and the inconvenient fact that a non-falsifiable claim doesn't rise to the level of being a hypothesis.
When I mention the fact that there's one hundred times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and water vapor absorbs vastly more infrared radiation than carbon dioxide, I am accused of attacking a straw man, of all bizarre things.
When I mention that the claim that predicting the climate tomorrow is difficult, predicting the climate two weeks from now is impossible, but predicting the climate a century from now is quite doable, is counterintuitive to say the least, the response is sputtering outrage and flat accusations that I must be "in denial," which is, I guess, a trendy insult among the emo kids this year.
When I mention the fact that environmental extremists have been fixated on this rather nihilistic idea that Western Civilization has DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED humanity for decades now, and while the ad-hoc hypotheses they push from year to year may change but the central idea, and obvious political motivation, remain unchanged, I am accused of speaking unscientifically.
If I bring up that 160 scientists the Leipzig Declaration, 4000 scientists (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000+ scientists and engineers who have so far signed the Global Warming Petition at OICM.org (all of which question the politically correct conventional wisdom being pushed by environmentalists), no doubt I will be accused of the fallacy of "appeal to authority."
But what does that make you, since you've been claiming for 70+ posts that this has all been debunked long ago by SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCIENTISTS, who of course can't be named, and no details can be found, but trust me, I know what I'm doing, it was all debunked, okay? You're just in denial, maaaaaaaaan!
>>74 For a guy who claims to be interested in objective truth and not bullshit, you sure aren't.
Takes one to know one. Cry more, emo kid.
> When I mention that the claim that predicting the climate tomorrow is difficult, predicting the climate two weeks from now is impossible, but predicting the climate a century from now is quite doable, is counterintuitive to say the least
I can't predict whether a coin flip will result will be heads or tails, but if I were to flip a coin 1000 times and record the data, I can predict the end ratio of heads to tails will be near 1:1 with reasonable accuracy. This is a gross oversimplification and a poor analogy, but the point is that while ''discrete events'' may not be predictable in a chaotic system, this does not mean ''long-term behavior'' is not predictable. For more information, google "chaos theory."
Also, since he won't cite his data, I will:
> the fact that extraordinary mass industrialization and increases in carbon dioxide levels worldwide between 1940 and 1975 coincided with measurable and significant decreases in global average temperatures for three and a half decades
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html
Judge for yourself.
> But what does that make you, since you've been claiming for 70+ posts that this has all been debunked long ago by SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCIENTISTS, who of course can't be named,
I've linked you the references. It's you who refuse to read them. Come back when you have, and address what is said in those, and maybe we can talk. This name-calling and quesstion-dodging has gone on for long enough.
Please, just take one of the realclimate posts, and try to show some actual science that refutes it. Not name calling, not writing "DOOOOOOOM" over and over again, not attacking the messenger, not vague references to Occam's Razor that you do not really understand, actual science. With references. Can you do that?
I guess he couldn't.
I'm not surprised.
What annoys me about the Global Warming argument is how little people have read up on it before putting forth a semi intelligent argument. Most of the points that people raise are redundant.
"So what, worst case scenario is a 5-6 degrees increase in temperature."
Protip buddy: 1 fucking degree Celcius change in your body temperature is enough to kill you. 5-6 degrees increase will wipe out entire species of animal.
"Water level rising a few meters is not so bad."
Have you noticed how much of our population lives on the coast? Do you realise that it only takes "a few metres" to submerge a city?
And if you haven't noticed already, the only parties playing down Global Warming are the US and the big corporates. Question is, who would you trust? The petition signed by numerous Nobel Prize winners or the people who want to protect their short term profits?
>The petition signed by numerous Nobel Prize winners
You mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal
As that one does not mention global warming, according to that Wikipedia article, probably not, huh?
No, rather this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists%27_Warning_to_Humanity
>And if you haven't noticed already, the only parties playing down Global Warming are the US and the big corporates. Question is, who would you trust? The petition signed by numerous Nobel Prize winners or the people who want to protect their short term profits?
You know, us humans also produce CO2, and a lot of ammonia just by living. That's really bad. Hey, i think the government should tax us for sporting and eating so much, because those two increase our metabolism, which yields more greenhouse gasses than absolutely necessary. You wanna downplay that huh, kiddo? do you even know how many people there are on this tiny planet? 6billion - that's 9 zeroes behind the 6. So that makes a real impact, just think about it.
(actually, I'd trust the big corporations here, because there you have tons of people who actually know about dealing with information, and are employed only to make decisions that use such information appropriately. That's more than I can say about the Nobelprize winners. Besides, I'd take the ideas of an average corporate employee about global warming just as serious as those from an economics, psychology, biology, mathematics... etc, laureates. Neither are professionals in the global warming discussion, that's why.)
Questions
1) Do you think humans are able to control the climate by regulating greenhouse gasses?
2) Do you think humans are able, now, to effectively adjust the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, so that global warming can be halted?
>"So what, worst case scenario is a 5-6 degrees increase in temperature."
>Protip buddy: 1 fucking degree Celcius change in your body temperature is enough to kill you. 5-6 degrees increase will wipe out entire species of animal.
Thanks, "buddy." I take it your entire family is wiped out when they leave their airconditioned car to step into the hot summer day?
finally
>What annoys me about the Global Warming argument is how little people have read up on it before putting forth a semi intelligent argument. Most of the points that people raise are redundant.
(laughing my ass of rolling on the floor cramping my stomach oh wow the irony W00T!!)
> You know, us humans also produce CO2, and a lot of ammonia just by living. That's really bad.
Is it? Show us some data that shows that CO2 emissions directly from humans are significant compared to emissions from industry and transportation. Or were you just making yourself a strawman?
> Besides, I'd take the ideas of an average corporate employee about global warming just as serious as those from an economics, psychology, biology, mathematics... etc, laureates. Neither are professionals in the global warming discussion, that's why.
And what about those who are professionals in climate science? They all say global warming is real, and a big threat. Most of the Nobel prize winners you hold in such low regard are not saying that they are experts and therefore you should listen to them. What they know is that they can trust those scientists who are experts, and who are pretty much unanimously saying this is a huge problem.
>You know, us humans also produce CO2, and a lot of ammonia just by living. That's really bad. Hey, i think the government should tax us for sporting and eating so much, because those two increase our metabolism, which yields more greenhouse gasses than absolutely necessary. You wanna downplay that huh, kiddo? do you even know how many people there are on this tiny planet? 6billion - that's 9 zeroes behind the 6. So that makes a real impact, just think about it.
So, what was your actual point of this? How did that link in with US and big corps downplaying Global Warming again? Your maths is certainly impressive, but you fail to address the original point made.
>actually, I'd trust the big corporations here, because there you have tons of people who actually know about dealing with information, and are employed only to make decisions that use such information appropriately.
They're employed to make a profit, not to give a damn about environmental consequences. If they had it their way, they would build a nuclear reactor in your backyard for the sake of a little pocket money.
>Thanks, "buddy." I take it your entire family is wiped out when they leave their airconditioned car to step into the hot summer day?
Oh yeah, because they have air conditioning in rain forests and South Pole. A 5-6 degree increase in temperature is not just one or two hot days in summer. It's an average, meaning a significant change in climate which will wipe out ecosystems. Ice caps will melt, water levels rise, etc etc. And for your information, it doesn't take that much to change your internal body temperature. Think heat strokes. Those are only caused by a change of less than 0.5 degrees Celsius.
>1) Do you think humans are able to control the climate by regulating greenhouse gasses?
There is substantial evidence of carbon emissions causing changes in climate over the years. That answers your question.
>2) Do you think humans are able, now, to effectively adjust the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, so that global warming can be halted?
Obviously not. But just because it's gone past the irreversible stage, it doesn't justify the continuing increase of carbon emissions. If you're dying of lung cancer from smoking, you don't keep on smoking if you want to live longer.
>What annoys me about the Global Warming argument is how little people have read up on it before putting forth a semi intelligent argument. Most of the points that people raise are redundant.
>(laughing my ass of rolling on the floor cramping my stomach oh wow the irony W00T!!)
Considering the lack of substance to your argument, that goes for you too.
haha, big lol at the envirofreaks up there
build a nuclear plant in my backyard? please, its one of the cleanest energies available... Not in my backyard, but certainly in the country yeah.
so if I'm dying of lungcancer, I'd stop smoking? Like that's gonna help! I'd enjoy my cigarette even better (I prefer cigars actually, more class)
If anyone other than >>81 thought that >>81s points are not to be laughed at, please stand up. Then go to your cuddleparty, and first turn of your computer.
I, personally, would wholeheartedly approve the building of a nuclear plant in my backyard. It might be a little small for one though.
>>88
You answer the analogies that I used, not the actual points that I made. When I raise a point about how companies don't give a shit about anything except for profits, you're not supposed to talk about how you like nuclear power plants. Ditto with the emissions point. Stop being so evasive, picking at trivialities and address the actual point.
You attack >>81 for silly points, but the fact is you've said nothing of substance that can rebut them.
>Then go to your cuddleparty, and first turn of your computer.
Reverting to personal insults. It shows what a convincing argument you've made.
Only corporate types advocate nuclear power as clean. Definitely not the same type of oil, coal, gas, auto and manufacturing corporate advocates, who claim global warming is lies, along the lines of (a) "Hey it's cold today! That disproves global warming!", (b) "You don't know what the weather is tomorrow! You can't say you know anything" and (c) "Shucks, you're just all being negative Nancies. Think positive!" (These are to a degree strawmen, but the arguments themselves are fallacies.), though.
Very conveniently you ignore other clean sources of power. Although each does have minor to major problems of their own (major probably being large hydroelectric dam's environmental impracts, pollution from geothermal, and disposal of silicone sandwich plates for solar, minor being the problem of finding viable places to put electric windmills), other sources of clean energy can be managed, to reduce issues.
Also, stopping smoking does actually help reduce the problems caused by smoking up to the point where you've contracted serious terminal illness. You see, the thing is, you're analogy makes the assumption that we're already doomed and can do nothing about it, and that we should do the danse macabre (How's that for a gloomy, "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!" attitude here), rather than the idea that it's possible to avert disaster; and that there's hope to change.
>Let's try again. Show us some data that shows that CO2 emissions directly from humans are significant compared to emissions from industry and transportation.
>Or else, admit that you're talking out of your ass.
I'm sorry. I thought it was actually extremely obvious that I was talking out of my ass on this particular point. Especially since I advocated a tax on exercising and eating, if I recall correctly. While you're at it, though, why don't you look up some data on the significance of emissions from industry and transportation, when compared to natural sources? (Protip, the movie 'the great global warming swindle' discusses this too. Conclusion: not very significant) Yeah.... isn't it fun to tell other people to look up data, and to read whole books? (Read Marx, Schumpeter and Riccardo to see why I am right - like hell you'd do that, right?)
---------------------------------------------------------
>>91 you are right about the ad hominem. >>81 had it coming, though.
---------------------------------------------------------
>>92 I am actually convinced that global warming is real. The movie which started this thread of, actually acknowledges global warming also. I'd like to state one of its conclusions here: Al Gore, in 'an inconvenient truth,' shows how there is a strong correlation between global warming and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's real data, and I think its relatively trustworthy. However, what the 'great global warming swindle' remarks about the relation between global warming and levels of CO2, is that we should look at the direction of causality. According to that movie, CO2 development lags behind global temperature, indicating that a warmer earth causes more CO2 in the atmposphere, not the other way around. The lag is a couple hundred of years.
I find that a highly relevant finding.
Another finding is that, according to the same models which are used to predict the future climate, changes in the temperature of our earth (I mean overall increases in climate) should be observed most drastically in the higher regions of our atmosphere, which is where the larger amounts of greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap more sunlight. Measurements of temperature at these heights have been conducted for ages, by means of simple weather balloons. 'The great global warming swindle' argues that the measurements are in conflict with what the climate models predict.
Again, I find that highly relevant: these predictions come from a central part from the climate models, which is the role of greenhouse gasses. These temperature data indicate that there is a fundamental flaw (not just a small mistake) in the model.
I am aware that some people featured in the movie were happy about the way they were portrayed, and about the way their comments were included in it. However, to my knowledge, only the oceanographer has made complaints about this. The two reasons for doubt which I posed, have for as far as I know, have not been challenged by the scientists who posed them in the movie.
It should be obvious that, if human caused CO2 emissions are insignificant to global warming, there is no reason at all to cut such emissions.
I hope this soothes the commenters who criticized my sloppy style. I do think I posed relevant arguments here although I did not pose contra arguments to all criticisms. The arguments above, causal relation between CO2 and global warming, and counter evidence to climate models, are the ones that I can support best. I must say that I am glad that there is debate on this issue though.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bah, comment field was too short, so here's the rest.
p.s. >>92, You are right in considering that I take a fatalistic approach toward the terminally diseased smoker, and that is indeed not a stance that I want to make toward my own, or others' futures, but I'd like to comment here that once you've contracted a terminal disease, most often the quality of your life already sucks so much that 1) smoking or not smoking doesn't matter that much and 2) so what if you die earlier - what of life is there to enjoy that you'd want to live another day for it?
> I'm sorry. I thought it was actually extremely obvious that I was talking out of my ass on this particular point. Especially since I advocated a tax on exercising and eating, if I recall correctly.
Well, yes. So you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Why are you talking? Nobody is impressed with strawmen. If you want to make an argument, you will have to provide some actual facts, and not just grandstanding and rambling.
> While you're at it, though, why don't you look up some data on the significance of emissions from industry and transportation, when compared to natural sources? (Protip, the movie 'the great global warming swindle' discusses this too. Conclusion: not very significant)
Here's a protip for you: As has been stated many times already now, the movie is not reliable, and misrepresents and misinterprets facts.
And has also been explained numerous times in this thread, it doesn't matter if man-made contributions are small compared to natural ones, because it's the change that is important, and its effects, not the total value.
Please go back and read the thread, and especially read the linked pages.
if the change is small, then it doesn't matter. If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.
And I acknowledged that the movie has not handled all contributions properly. I said though, that some important facts in it seem to have been handled correctly, and those facts i have named in my secondlast post. please, >>95, abandon the name 'anonymous scientist,' because you know bollocks about science.
> if the change is small, then it doesn't matter.
> If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.
It may well, however, prevent or delay your upcoming heart attack.
Pretty stupid analogy.
>>97 the analogy also fails to predict who will win the next presidential elections. what a crappy analogy.
I went to read >>70 I think this is the relevant point you refer to.
>It does not matter what the total value is. What matters is what happens when you change it. If it is a balanced system, small changes can have big effects.
That is correct. However, do small changes really have a small effect? Even then, such small changes, to be significant, have to be relatively large when we make them: Purely hypothetical, if Humans contribute 5% to CO2 production next to natural sources (and I think this is already large) then reducing total CO2 production by half a percent still requires a 10% change in human caused emissions. Do note, that humans then still contribute 4% (actually, slightly more) to total CO2 production, which in a environmental system with a very unstable balance (as many environmentalists like to pose it) might still be not enough.
By the way, since you speak of a balanced system, i suppose you understand that the system will likely find a new balance at a different temperatures depending on the new amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (although I actually adhere to a temperature->CO2 level causality). It is then interesting to see if the new temperature at the current rate of emission might be acceptable.
> if the change is small, then it doesn't matter. If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.
Sorry, counter-examples only count one way. If you say "all small changes have small effects", I can refute this by giving an example of a small change with a large effect, but it is not enough for you to give a single example of a small change with a small effect to refute me.
This is very basic logic. You really ought to understand at least THAT much if you're going to be in an argument at all.
> please, >>95, abandon the name 'anonymous scientist,' because you know bollocks about science.
And you know more? You haven't made a single scientific argument yet. All you've done is pull numbers out of your ass like the mean anything, such as this:
> However, do small changes really have a small effect? Even then, such small changes, to be significant, have to be relatively large when we make them: Purely hypothetical, if Humans contribute 5% to CO2 production next to natural sources (and I think this is already large) then reducing total CO2 production by half a percent still requires a 10% change in human caused emissions. Do note, that humans then still contribute 4% (actually, slightly more) to total CO2 production, which in a environmental system with a very unstable balance (as many environmentalists like to pose it) might still be not enough.
This means nothing, especially when the numbers are completely made up, and you have no understanding of the processes involved. If you want to make an argument, reference some real data and real research, please.
I've provided at least some references for my argument, but you have obviously not read them, and neither have you given any yourself.
>>99 I reckon I know a little about science, yeah. But ok, how 'scientific' I am should never be an argument actually, so I'll refrain from alluding to peoples scientific attitudes.
>This means nothing, especially when the numbers are completely made up,
Actually, it is not meaningless, since I am trying to show the limits of the observation that in a balanced system small changes can have big effects. I explicitly state that the numbers are hypothetical only. I am thus discussing the properties of a balanced system, which does not require any real data because we´re talking about a theoretical construct anyway.
Which is a different discussion from the one about the data, about which I did actually posted in >>93, although my referencing at this point remains at 'the great global swindle.' Do note that I am glad that you do reference, but unless you can shortly summarize your reference, I'm not going to look it up - takes too much time. This may seem lazy, but I don't have the time to read pages upon pages of stuff of which only a small part might be relevant to your argument.