|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything. The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence. So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about. I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate). But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant. The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant. Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself. Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities?
Are you serious? What would we call attention whores like Al Gore? What would we call congressmen who use speculation based rhetorical arguments to 'refute' climate change?
We'd call them self interested politicians.
|
On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about. I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate). But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant. The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant. Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself. Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis
Yeah, and he's from the same genus of clowns who have been preaching imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years for the past 50 years. And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore.
|
On May 20 2014 03:58 kwizach wrote:For the record, the "educated skeptic" that is xDaunt declared in 2011 that we were facing a "global cooling" (instead of global warming) trend, that "no one knows what the fuck is going on" with regards to the Earth's climate, that there are "gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years", and that his work as a lawyer was "a form of peer review" which allowed him to evaluate the claims of scientists (see here, pp. 59-61).
People not understanding what is wrong with the 'article'/propaganda piece Danglers posted certainly do not qualify as educated.
Yeah, and he's from the same genus of clowns who have been preaching imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years for the past 50 years. And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore.
What exactly is a "imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years" and who has claimed that?
|
On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about. I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate). But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant. The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant. Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself. Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis Yeah, and he's from the same genus of clowns who have been preaching imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years for the past 50 years. And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore.
Relevance? Weren't you the one who originally said we should discard arguments against the vocal and highly visible minority of idiots?
|
On May 20 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
What exactly is a "imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years" and who has claimed that?
There have been too many instances to count. Here's the latest one that I saw a week or two ago:
Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:
Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.
It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now.
Source.
|
On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about. I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate). But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant. The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant. Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself. Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore.
Thank goodness the Koch brothers wouldn't do something like politicize the environmental impact of industry... It's so hard to take this stuff seriously...
|
On May 20 2014 03:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 03:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:11 Jormundr wrote:On May 20 2014 03:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:55 Jormundr wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything. The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence. So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about. I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate). But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant. The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant. Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself. Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. On a different note, you're wrong. Critiquing the viability of your model is a basic tenet of scientific peer review. Next? On the same note, you're wrong. Passing the peer-review test doesn't mean that your model will correctly predict the future. "You can't see the future!1!!22" Good rhetorical argument bro. But we can see the past and create extrapolations based on that with sufficient margins of error to account for future variability. Now it's your turn: Why is your model of the future the correct one in spite of the fact that the majority of people who are more qualified and have less of an inherent bias than you disagree and provide mountains of evidence versus your speculation? Nyxisto was able to provide an intelligent response (looking into it), why can't you? There are many cases where extrapolating from the past, even with wide margins of error, does not give you an accurate prediction of the future. I'm not claiming to have a superior model. I did provide an intelligent response. I refuted your rhetorical argument with a rhetorical argument. This marks two posts in a row where you've raised strawman arguments that amount to nothing more than saying that "the consensus can be wrong". Unfortunately for you, the burden is on you to prove that the consensus is incorrect because you are the one who says that this is the case. Provide a factual basis for your claim.
Ah, I think I see the problem. I made a post many pages back showing that climate models weren't too accurate. I should have linked to that. I can see how you think I was making an empty statement 
Here's what I was referring to:
Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 07:38 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:30 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future. Yes, that's how you predict the future. Or do you have data from the future? What kind of moronic argument is that? @Wolstan: What exactly we should do can be debated. That climate change is very real, heavily influenced by humans, and will significantly affect humans in the future is a fact and not up for discussion. On May 15 2014 07:32 Chocolate wrote:On May 15 2014 07:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:23 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 07:13 Nyxisto wrote:On May 15 2014 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 15 2014 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:
No it's exactly about 'what should we do?' Climate change deniers don't have a single piece of evidence supporting their position and no one should even have to bother dealing with them. What's 'their position'? The extremist position that climate change is 100% unrelated to mankind? What about the more moderate positions that have tons of evidence to support them? What about the extremist positions on the left that aren't supported by science? Nah. Let's lump everyone into two categories. That way there's zero chance of getting anything practical done, beyond reelection bids. What exactly is a moderate position on this topic? 99% of the scientists involved agree that climate change is heavily influenced by humans and that the occurring changes are going to have disastrous consequences if we don't react. Which reputable source predicts something else? The moderate position is that the science isn't very accurate yet. Climate models don't have much predicting power and so public policy should not revolve around them. Also, we've already been reacting for generations. No, that's a flat out lie. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}" Huh? I don't think you understand what I wrote. Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future. "Data on the past is not a model that predicts the future" -Jonny, 2014 Stay in school kids  No you're making a fool of yourself by saying retarded stuff, that's not our problem Climate models predict the future. That's what they do, and they don't do it very well. ![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130330_STC334_1.png) Show nested quote +OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”
Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years. Source
I'm looking more into it now, since Nyxisto posted some information that the models are accurate.
|
On May 20 2014 04:08 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis Yeah, and he's from the same genus of clowns who have been preaching imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years for the past 50 years. And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore. Relevance? Weren't you the one who originally said we should discard arguments against the vocal and highly visible minority of idiots? Well, if I'm listening to Al Gore talk about how it is imperative that we adopt a carbon credit tax system "for the good of the planet," I think that it's important that I also know that he's heavily invested in the entities that would facilitate carbon trading.
|
On May 20 2014 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 02:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit. Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. SourceOn a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore. Thank goodness the Koch brothers wouldn't do something like politicize the environmental impact of industry... It's so hard to take this stuff seriously...
When was the last time that you addressed a point directly rather than bring up some strawman or other irrelevant consideration?
|
On May 20 2014 04:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:08 Jormundr wrote:On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
[quote]
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis Yeah, and he's from the same genus of clowns who have been preaching imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years for the past 50 years. And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore. Relevance? Weren't you the one who originally said we should discard arguments against the vocal and highly visible minority of idiots? Well, if I'm listening to Al Gore talk about how it is imperative that we adopt a carbon credit tax system "for the good of the planet," I think that it's important that I also know that he's heavily invested in the entities that would facilitate carbon trading.
Yes, but the difference is contrary to his right wing pendants, he is right. He could get a billion dollars for every gram of co2 that is not blown into the atmosphere, the science is still the same.
|
On May 20 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
What exactly is a "imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years" and who has claimed that? There have been too many instances to count. Here's the latest one that I saw a week or two ago: Show nested quote +Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:
Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.
It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now. Source.
So you're going down this route and claiming that the french foreign minister is an authority on climate science? Well since we get to choose our opponent willy nilly....
In the bottom right of the map, in the blue trunks we have French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius playing for team Democrats!
Aaaand in the top left, in the red trunks we have Walt "Wuff Guy" Hayes playing for team Republicans!!
Who is a bigger moron, and more importantly, why would you think these people have any place in a discussion on the scientific basis for climate change?
On May 20 2014 04:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:08 Jormundr wrote:On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
[quote]
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis Yeah, and he's from the same genus of clowns who have been preaching imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years for the past 50 years. And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore. Relevance? Weren't you the one who originally said we should discard arguments against the vocal and highly visible minority of idiots? Well, if I'm listening to Al Gore talk about how it is imperative that we adopt a carbon credit tax system "for the good of the planet," I think that it's important that I also know that he's heavily invested in the entities that would facilitate carbon trading.
But... at the top of the last page you asked not to do this...
|
On May 20 2014 04:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:On May 20 2014 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 20 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
[quote]
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature. Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting? Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people. I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here. You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities? Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#Scientific_basis And it's a shame, too. This is a legitimate area of scientific study that has become so stupidly politicized and corrupt as a result of people like Al Gore. Thank goodness the Koch brothers wouldn't do something like politicize the environmental impact of industry... It's so hard to take this stuff seriously... When was the last time that you addressed a point directly rather than bring up some strawman or other irrelevant consideration?
Constantly... But what points have you made?
|
A federal judge struck down Oregon's ban on same-sex marriage on Monday, and state officials are not expected to appeal the ruling.
BuzzFeed reported that no government officials plan to appeal that ruling by U.S. district judge Michael McShane. The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, had attempted to intervene in the case, but was denied by McShane.
McShane's ruling is the 12th federal court decision to overturn a state's same-sex marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, according to BuzzFeed.
Source
|
Norway28674 Posts
On May 20 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
What exactly is a "imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years" and who has claimed that? There have been too many instances to count. Here's the latest one that I saw a week or two ago: Show nested quote +Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:
Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.
It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now. Source.
You know, it's my impression when I see stuff like this, that people aren't saying that "stuff is going to hell in 500 days- 10/15 years". They're saying that the window for political change that can have a significant impact in slowing down climate change is closing fast - be it 500 days or 10-15 years.
Obviously there are some alarmists out there, and I do not believe that people who share my political opinion are on average significantly more intelligent or noble than ones on the other side of the spectrum - I would assume that disinformation, if not evenly spread, is at least likely to be found no matter where you look. But there is a big difference between being skeptical towards the more extreme models for consequences of climate change and being skeptical towards man-made climate change period. (and man-made is an important distinction as man-made implies that it can be man-unmade). Personally I have no idea whether sea levels will rise by 1 meter or 30 cm by 2050 or by 2100 and I have no idea whether the gulf stream warming norway's coast line is gonna disappear if temperatures increase and I have no idea what frequency hurricanes will increase by and I have no idea whether the water reserves in the himalayas are actually melting away and I have no idea how many africans are predicted to die because Malaria is spreading to regions that were previously untouched as a consequence of increased temperatures and I think polar bears are great animals but I understand that preserving them might not be a reason to lose out on the convenience of driving an oil-powered car or eating steak. There are a whole lot of maybes, and media will often report the most alarming findings or scenarios because they generate more hits.
But then I think, I do like unspoiled nature. I don't like pollution (and walking next to a highly trafficked road, it's not hard to witness pollution!). I like snow. I think public transportation ultimately makes sense and I vastly prefer being in urban regions where cars don't dominate the scenery - it's much nicer to walk around, there's less noise, less stress. I enjoy my steak, but I could happily eat less of it. It's like, to me, the possible bad consequences of man made climate change are absolutely terrible, furthering the divide between poor and rich regions of the world, creating more instability in the most populous regions of the world where the changes are most likely to be felt the hardest. Maybe some of them are exaggerated, but I hardly even care, because the medicine for man made global warming, to me, sounds pleasant even in the event that the consequences are greatly exaggerated.
And then there's the additional aspect that as more and more time passes, it is my impression that the scientific consensus is becoming more and more pessimistic..
|
On May 20 2014 00:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 20:42 coverpunch wrote:On May 19 2014 20:33 Acrofales wrote:On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 03:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] That sounds like a west coast liberal stereotype  Bear in mind that as you move beyond high school you have fewer simple 'correct' answers in the back of the book. Hard facts are harder to come by and skepticism and critical analysis are valuable... to a point. It's only when people allow their skepticism and critiques to become unyielding that you really have a problem. As an example, if you look at global warming there's nothing wrong with starting out skeptical of the conclusions. But as data presents itself you need to yield your position when appropriate. That's often hard because it is (wrongly in my opinion) associated with being incorrect, which leaves you feeling bad or opening yourself up to ridicule. In turn, that can cause people to dig their heels in and try harder and harder to prove that they are right. Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category. We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Too bad that while Danglars is toting from his high horse that we should believe facts and data-driven science, the Forbes piece he quotes does none of that and gets quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong. Examples? The world stopped warming sometime in the 90s is blatantly false, and almost invariably spouted by deniers. Firstly, that global temperatures stopped rising for a 5 year period (approx) in the 00ties is largely irrelevant for trends. Secondly, temperatures are rising again, albeit slower than some models predicted. And finally, that slowing down can be explained by including volcano eruptions in the models. So let's just pray volcanoes keep erupting in numbers similar to the last decade, right? Sources: www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Www.scientificamerican.Com/article/sun-dimming-volcanoes-partly-explain-global-warming-hiatus/But it's okay. Clearly an opinion piece in Forbes holds more weight than your own government climate bureau or publications in Nature.
I'm not sure what I said to imply that I didn't believe you or that I don't believe in the official statistics. But you said the Forbes piece gets "quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong" and I was curious which facts you were referring to. You sort of but didn't really answer the question.
|
On May 20 2014 06:04 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 00:25 Acrofales wrote:On May 19 2014 20:42 coverpunch wrote:On May 19 2014 20:33 Acrofales wrote:On May 19 2014 14:56 IgnE wrote:On May 19 2014 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 19 2014 11:51 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2014 11:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 19 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Part of the problem is what is or isn't considered 'simple correct answers' during that pre-college time. The age of the earth and climate change fall into that category.
We shouldn't have to have long drawn out debates on whether the age of the earth needs to be asterisked with the idea that it could also be ~9,000 years old or that climate change may or may not be real, in our students text books. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. The skepticism is on anthropomorphism and the idea of 'natural' in climatology and the hyperbolic claims of world doom, and the following ideas of primitivism as an answer if such claims were true. Science has never been about consensus or 'fact'. Science by nature gives us no facts, only approximations of the truth. That isn't a bad thing - it is actually the reason why science is so beneficial to us. At one time Heliocentrism was laughed off the scientific stage and Geocentric models were the scientific fact. This is why whenever I hear such and such a scientific fact never to be questioned or examined ever again, it's more a personal raison d'etre than it is about science and finding the truth. You can see it here in this thread, and the people who say debate is old-fashioned, who needs that...we have FACT. Everyone acknowledges that climates change. No they really don't. Are you really suggesting there is anything substantive to be gained from the perpetuation of the idea that the earth is ~9,000 years old? No, but that is a non-sequitur. Yes, everyone acknowledges climates change. Even basic changes such as the seasons, and longer scale periods such as Ice Ages and Maunder cycles. Don't be so dense. Yes, I understand you don't like religion, but don't bring those prejudices into science and use science as your personal bullwhip. Science is supposed to be objective and one of its core tenets is questioning, re-evaluating, and certainly not being a dismissive twat. This is basically so. It doesn't even take much acknowledging the greenhouse effect and CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That doesn't preclude questioning our understanding of quantitative climate models and their prescriptive effects. Maybe long term trends in the realm of centuries, but the status of doom in coming decades ... still keep a healthy skepticism, particularly in light of the decade and a half pause button we recently experienced. Then when we get these people with a whip and a policy bullhorn, it does a lot to discredit the cause. Oh wait there's religious nuts out there, better be worried to death of their anti-science views!!! Kill industries in the US, card check climate change deniers ... but are we ignoring China and India now? With the charged rhetoric and this and that presidential report or National Climate Assessment ... are we agenda driven or science driven? One skeptic's thoughts, appearing in Forbes, I'll excerpt a little I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ![...]
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data. ForbesDon't create more skeptics if you're convinced in your understanding of the science, anthropogenic global warming and extreme weather events crowd. Convert the skeptics with your devotion to the data and acknowledgments when you make mistakes. I have to admit that that Forbes article is a pretty well-written propaganda piece. I can see how it would be convincing to people who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a serious threat. Too bad that while Danglars is toting from his high horse that we should believe facts and data-driven science, the Forbes piece he quotes does none of that and gets quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong. Examples? The world stopped warming sometime in the 90s is blatantly false, and almost invariably spouted by deniers. Firstly, that global temperatures stopped rising for a 5 year period (approx) in the 00ties is largely irrelevant for trends. Secondly, temperatures are rising again, albeit slower than some models predicted. And finally, that slowing down can be explained by including volcano eruptions in the models. So let's just pray volcanoes keep erupting in numbers similar to the last decade, right? Sources: www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Www.scientificamerican.Com/article/sun-dimming-volcanoes-partly-explain-global-warming-hiatus/But it's okay. Clearly an opinion piece in Forbes holds more weight than your own government climate bureau or publications in Nature. I'm not sure what I said to imply that I didn't believe you or that I don't believe in the official statistics. But you said the Forbes piece gets "quite a few FACTS flat-out wrong" and I was curious which facts you were referring to. You sort of but didn't really answer the question.
Facts that are wrong: Prognosis is not accurate (wrong, because predictions are still within the lower error margins we are seeing), that emissions are negligible because we're talking about the 0.05 to 5% range ( in which scientific field are these kind of sizes irrelevant?), that emissions are actually super duper awesome for agriculture. (evidence implies the opposite with very few exceptions for only a few areas), that the earth has seen way higher co2 concentrations before. (during times where only plants could survive, so what exactly is his point besides intentionally misleading the reader?) that there is no consesus between climate scientists (which is wrong, there is) , that there is no argument for man made climate change in the climate assessment report(although there is), that models have gotten worth (which they have not) yada yada yada. The whole thing is a giant piece of crap.
|
President Barack Obama's controversial judicial nominee Michael Boggs has sparked a rancorous battle between two Georgia Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus.
Rep. David Scott (D-GA) said civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) was "a turncoat who has betrayed African Americans, women and gays" if, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) suggested, Lewis gave his blessing to Boggs, who is under fire for his past votes as a Georgia state legislator, including one to keep the state's old Confederate battle flag.
Scott, an outspoken opponent of the nomination, was responding to Feinstein's comments on CNN that Lewis "felt that this was a good ticket" -- referring to the negotiated package of seven Obama nominees to Georgia courts, which included Boggs. Lewis has not spoken publicly about the nomination.
Reached by TPM, Scott spokesman Michael Andel defended the congressman's remarks and called on Lewis to speak out against Boggs before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on him.
"Rep. Lewis will not make any public statements about the nomination and senators are saying his views will influence them to support or oppose the nomination. Others are saying that he has given approval, but this is the first media report of what we have been hearing for two weeks," Andel said, adding that Scott wants Lewis to speak out "[t]o stop the view in the Senate that he supports the Boggs’ nomination. The Committee vote can be any day now."
Source
|
On May 20 2014 05:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On May 20 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
What exactly is a "imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years" and who has claimed that? There have been too many instances to count. Here's the latest one that I saw a week or two ago: Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:
Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.
It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now. Source. You know, it's my impression when I see stuff like this, that people aren't saying that "stuff is going to hell in 500 days- 10/15 years". They're saying that the window for political change that can have a significant impact in slowing down climate change is closing fast - be it 500 days or 10-15 years. Obviously there are some alarmists out there, and I do not believe that people who share my political opinion are on average significantly more intelligent or noble than ones on the other side of the spectrum - I would assume that disinformation, if not evenly spread, is at least likely to be found no matter where you look. But there is a big difference between being skeptical towards the more extreme models for consequences of climate change and being skeptical towards man-made climate change period. (and man-made is an important distinction as man-made implies that it can be man-unmade). Personally I have no idea whether sea levels will rise by 1 meter or 30 cm by 2050 or by 2100 and I have no idea whether the gulf stream warming norway's coast line is gonna disappear if temperatures increase and I have no idea what frequency hurricanes will increase by and I have no idea whether the water reserves in the himalayas are actually melting away and I have no idea how many africans are predicted to die because Malaria is spreading to regions that were previously untouched as a consequence of increased temperatures and I think polar bears are great animals but I understand that preserving them might not be a reason to lose out on the convenience of driving an oil-powered car or eating steak. There are a whole lot of maybes, and media will often report the most alarming findings or scenarios because they generate more hits.
This is the most sensible perspective that I have seen from your side in some time.
But then I think, I do like unspoiled nature. I don't like pollution (and walking next to a highly trafficked road, it's not hard to witness pollution!). I like snow. I think public transportation ultimately makes sense and I vastly prefer being in urban regions where cars don't dominate the scenery - it's much nicer to walk around, there's less noise, less stress. I enjoy my steak, but I could happily eat less of it. It's like, to me, the possible bad consequences of man made climate change are absolutely terrible, furthering the divide between poor and rich regions of the world, creating more instability in the most populous regions of the world where the changes are most likely to be felt the hardest. Maybe some of them are exaggerated, but I hardly even care, because the medicine for man made global warming, to me, sounds pleasant even in the event that the consequences are greatly exaggerated.
And then there's the additional aspect that as more and more time passes, it is my impression that the scientific consensus is becoming more and more pessimistic..
I don't think that anyone objects to sensible modernization and green development. As just an example, I'm all for putting in decent public transportation in urban areas, and I think that it is criminally stupid that so many large US cities are without it.
For me, the issue is that many of the proposals for what needs to be done to avert disaster entail severe economic consequences -- especially in that they all result in the elimination of cheap energy. If you want to talk about harming the poor, eliminating cheap energy is the fastest way to accomplish that. I'm just not prepared to sign off on that kind of change given where the science is on the actual risk.
|
On May 20 2014 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2014 04:03 Nyxisto wrote:
What exactly is a "imminent climate disaster within 10-15 years" and who has claimed that? There have been too many instances to count. Here's the latest one that I saw a week or two ago: Show nested quote +Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:
Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.
It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days. However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 565 days from now. Source.
It is my experience in reading scientific publications that all fields maintain a low level of extremist background conversation. Generally speaking this is healthy for the conversation because the data is so esoteric that everybody who reads it has years of context to manage their perspective. Sadly, as a field grows to the size of climate science while the percentage of good science relative to the whole body goes up, the absolute amount of bad science also goes up. Climate science is such large and politicized field right now that if you wanted to find 100 studies to back any position it could be done. It is not my specialty but I maintain that the saving grace for these fields is that the bigger they are the stronger an indicator academic consensus becomes, unless you feel the conspiracy is just that large or that students of the field have no true academic understanding of their field.
|
United States42785 Posts
The argument that human agricultural production is a carbon sink is nonsensical because we don't farm to store up large piles of carbohydrates, every co2 that leaves to become food then becomes energy in the body which, as a byproduct of respiration, returns to co2. It's nonsensical and could only fool an idiot with no understanding of the chemistry involved in photosynthesis and respiration which, due to their pretty high importance to the way life works, were a pretty early part of my education. Agricultural produce is not a carbon sink any more than growing wood to fuel fires is a carbon sink, it is two balancing exchanges combined with a fuckload of carbon positive byproducts like shipping.
Now paper libraries, they're a carbon sink because there is no intent to burn the books. But food, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
