EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kinkulaattori
Finland25 Posts
| ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:33 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I wasn't talking about the OP. I was talking about the guy before me who assumed he knew anything about me. Everyone is a scientist. And guess what: science is not based on consensus. It doesn't matter who says it or doesn't. If it is not proven than it is nothing I need to worry about. My expertise is entirely irrelevant. It is either true or it isn't. If you had proof, you would give it. You don't have proof, so you are incapable of giving it, so I am incapable of caring. I haven't had one tiny shred of evidence put in front of me. So far I've had the unsourced words of someone, and a "go to Wikipedia". Exactly why should I care about that? I never said i know everything about you. I merely asked a question to get why you have the view that you have and which primary sources have you checked for your conclusions. You're right. it's not about consensus, though there's some value in it. The real value is in the evidence. Have you checked out the links posted in this thread? People have given some sources for their statements. | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
| ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:01 Thorakh wrote: Naysayers make me so angry, you can't just toy around with the world like that. Unless of course you're a world leader sitting on your piles of cash, laughing because you'll be dead when the effects start to kick in. You're mistaken. The real string pullers are constantly cleaning up the mess the party is leaving behind and survive beyond the artificial reigns of puppet Presidents and Prime Ministers. Don't worry  | ||
|
PetitCrabe
Canada410 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:25 Notfragile wrote: The OP is really polite and helpful. And answering to a lot of posts. I do not think that he belongs in that sequence of events you described. And dude, are you a scientist? Write down your qualifications, before you can question the output of the majority of planet's scientific community. What can support your "i don't support the conclusion at all"? If you could provide us with your level of expertise on the matter it would prove really helpful for OP to answer directly to your level. Also, thanks for the wonderful effort. I really want to know where OP finds time and will to continue arguing with people who bluntly deny what evidence you put in front of them. You are assuming the OP is right, he has sources (or not) on certain subjects, he cites some studies, does it make OP credible? absolutely! Does it make him right though? MAYBE not? At school, I was bombarded during 1h lecture by my geology professor with evidence of other studies, graphs, stats, reports, about how humans are NOT influencing Earth's temperature. You say 'question the output of the majority of planet's scientific community'. Are you sure about that? Or are you ignoring all the reports saying the opposite or dismiss as being ridicule? Give a graph to two scientifics, and they might interpret 2 different meanings out of it. Some superpose the level of CO2 and the temperature and say, correlation, therefore causation. I heard some other people say, it's not because we increase CO2 that the temperature rises, it's because the temperature rises (for some reasons, naturally, or due to human activity) that CO2 levels increase. We can see that on graphs, the increase in CO2 lags behind temperature by 100 years. I've seen some graphs where we see CO2 levels and temperatures where there are NO correlation at all between the two for some long periods of time, with temperature spiking up while CO2 going down. I've seen other graphs where we see a decrease in average temperature since 2003. Did you also know that the average temperature on Earth is 14°C ± 0.7 °C while the past 150 years have seen an increase of 0.6°C ± 0.2 °C? See how that 0.6 is IN the margin of error of the average temperature? I read somewhere that compared to the history of the Earth, we have a low level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Don't just accuse people from ignoring evidence because of global warming caused by humans, because you are clearly ignoring the evidence of the opposite. For myself, I DON'T KNOW whether we are the cause of global warming, but I hate to hear people assume everybody agrees that we are and that does who say otherwise are idiots. | ||
|
henkel
Netherlands146 Posts
Second of year of my Biology bachelor we had a graded debate about it, I argued against, on the topic of man made global climate change. There were no specialist present so maybe you can address these points that weren't disputed properly there. Doing this of out of memory, so might be a bit hit and mis. if man made global climate change is a fact why was there the "climate-gate" scandal? Wasn't the IPCC's report that started it all, especially Michal Mann's graph, based on wrongly executed statistics and non-random measuring points specifically chosen to proof his hypothesis. Isn't the climate and it's feedback systems to poorly understood to be able to make any reliable predictions on the future climate. For example water temperature rising -> less Co2 absorption by water but on the other hand higher water temperature -> more algae -> more Co2 absorption. These are the ones i can remember, should look in my old notes. would like to ad though that u made a dam nice OP. | ||
|
ThePhan2m
Norway2750 Posts
| ||
|
Carapas
Canada242 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:01 Thorakh wrote: Naysayers make me so angry, you can't just toy around with the world like that. Unless of course you're a world leader sitting on your piles of cash, laughing because you'll be dead when the effects start to kick in. We will all be dead when the effects kicks in, also don't think that Naysayers as you call them have no arguments... If cows have more effects on global warming than humans should we kill all the cows? I heard that the sun is the main source of heat we should cool it down a lil bit. Earth radioactivity is also warming up the earth should we change planet? No, all we can do is deal with it because every physic phenomenon affect the earth and that is why there is natural selection, because not everyone can survive in this world as cruel as it may sound. There is thousand and thousand of africans dying everyday. Why? Because we are reaching the population cap and we cannot feed everybody. The fact is that the human population is skyrocketing since the industrialisation and there is big consequences to this phenomenon. People are going to die and it's no big deal to most of us, but when the so called ''global warming'' appears people are going nuts because it will affect them in 50 years, it just makes no sense to me. | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:35 Carapas wrote: So many misconceptions and myths in one post, it almost seems impossible.We will all be dead when the effects kicks in, also don't think that Naysayers as you call them have no arguments... If cows have more effects on global warming than humans should we kill all the cows? I heard that the sun is the main source of heat we should cool it down a lil bit. Earth radioactivity is also warming up the earth should we change planet? No, all we can do is deal with it because every physic phenomenon affect the earth and that is why there is natural selection, because not everyone can survive in this world as cruel as it may sound. There is thousand and thousand of africans dying everyday. Why? Because we are reaching the population cap and we cannot feed everybody. The fact is that the human population is skyrocketing since the industrialisation and there is big consequences to this phenomenon. People are going to die and it's no big deal to most of us, but when the so called ''global warming'' appears people are going nuts because it will affect them in 50 years, it just makes no sense to me. 1) If that were true that would be a good starting point. Cows are less important than everything and everyone that is going to dissappear. 2) The sun is not the cause of global warming. 3) Earth radioactivity, what? 4) We can feed and house everyone. 5) It makes no sense to you that people are 'going nuts' because our children will inherit a shitty world because we had too many dollar signs on the place our eyes should be? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic, what more proof do you want? Why would you rather believe shady people with no credentials who cite some stuff scientists said out of context, show some graphs that are either made up, statistically insignificant or only show a tiny period where a large period would be relevant, yell some stuff about conspiracies that involve money and boom, suddenly everyone is 'convinced' global warming is not real/not manmade. It's mind boggling really. Here's some food for thought, real food, with credible sources and all: And regardless, it's better we overdo it than that we don't do anything at all. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:14 henkel wrote: love this debate topic. I personally do believe man kind as a whole can affect global climate, That we are changing it and that is a bad thing that has to be slowed down as much as possible. I don't think it can be stopped Second of year of my Biology bachelor we had a graded debate about it, I argued against, on the topic of man made global climate change. There were no specialist present so maybe you can address these points that weren't disputed properly there. Doing this of out of memory, so might be a bit hit and mis. if man made global climate change is a fact why was there the "climate-gate" scandal? Wasn't the IPCC's report that started it all, especially Michal Mann's graph, based on wrongly executed statistics and non-random measuring points specifically chosen to proof his hypothesis. Isn't the climate and it's feedback systems to poorly understood to be able to make any reliable predictions on the future climate. For example water temperature rising -> less Co2 absorption by water but on the other hand higher water temperature -> more algae -> more Co2 absorption. These are the ones i can remember, should look in my old notes. would like to ad though that u made a dam nice OP. hi henkel, 1) climategate: climate science is a big science with thousands of people around the world doing their research. there are big egos (too many °), some rightly so, some not so much. some are editors of certain magazines and push their own position more than it is perhaps correct in a perfect world. this does not mean, that there is some strange censorship going on, it just means that scientists are human. each IPCC AR (all four) are the work of hundreds of individuals in their spare time, nobody gets paid for anything. then, some people STEAL emails, a few hundred thousand and search them to quote out of context. they find nothing except some rude language and a few people not behaving perfectly °J° that is climategate for me. if someone would publish all EXXON emails of the last ten years and would search for bad language, do you think they would find something? 2) it was the third assessment report (TAR) with the hockeystick graph put very prominently into the summary for policy maker. there were some minor statistical irregularities in the original method, those have been shown in the literature and have been remedied. the resulting graph looks close to identical. even if the full graph would be wrong, the other 1000 pages of evidence would not be invalidated. the hockeystick is NOT essential for climate science, whatsoever. it is just one reconstruction for the northern hemisphere and it was used quite a lot to convince politicians. it was a means of communication, not a major scientific breakthrough in itself. 3) climate feedbacks and their respective strengths is indead current research topic, resulting in uncertainty of the climate response to certain forcing changes. it is current understanding however, that this uncertainty is smaller than the signal itself. hope that helps! w | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 14 2011 06:11 PetitCrabe wrote: You are assuming the OP is right, he has sources (or not) on certain subjects, he cites some studies, does it make OP credible? absolutely! Does it make him right though? MAYBE not? At school, I was bombarded during 1h lecture by my geology professor with evidence of other studies, graphs, stats, reports, about how humans are NOT influencing Earth's temperature. You say 'question the output of the majority of planet's scientific community'. Are you sure about that? Or are you ignoring all the reports saying the opposite or dismiss as being ridicule? Give a graph to two scientifics, and they might interpret 2 different meanings out of it. Some superpose the level of CO2 and the temperature and say, correlation, therefore causation. I heard some other people say, it's not because we increase CO2 that the temperature rises, it's because the temperature rises (for some reasons, naturally, or due to human activity) that CO2 levels increase. We can see that on graphs, the increase in CO2 lags behind temperature by 100 years. I've seen some graphs where we see CO2 levels and temperatures where there are NO correlation at all between the two for some long periods of time, with temperature spiking up while CO2 going down. I've seen other graphs where we see a decrease in average temperature since 2003. Did you also know that the average temperature on Earth is 14°C ± 0.7 °C while the past 150 years have seen an increase of 0.6°C ± 0.2 °C? See how that 0.6 is IN the margin of error of the average temperature? I read somewhere that compared to the history of the Earth, we have a low level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Don't just accuse people from ignoring evidence because of global warming caused by humans, because you are clearly ignoring the evidence of the opposite. For myself, I DON'T KNOW whether we are the cause of global warming, but I hate to hear people assume everybody agrees that we are and that does who say otherwise are idiots. hi petitcrab! in science a hypothesis is valid until someone comes up with evidence of the opposite. yet, with all the money of fossil fuel based comapnies and institutions, we do not have a single consistent hypothesis that explains 20th century warming without CO2 forcing. not one, and I dont exxagerate. There are single arguments about certaint periods in the past or certain effects (slar rays anyone), but it noone, I repeat, noone has ever put them up into a model that shows us that a 20th centuray global climate model should react the way it did. this is why people say that media ignores the evidence and not vice versa, there is just no such thing in a consistent way. I encourage everyone, though, to find wholes in the 'standard' theory. this is why we do science, and if someone comes up with a better one that indicates human can put as much carbo in the atmosphere as they want, Ill be fine with it, Ill even be very happy. I just dont think its gonna happen | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
if man made global climate change is a fact why was there the "climate-gate" scandal? Climategate debunk (sources are in the video description):+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:53 kinkulaattori wrote: I would have a question not directly about yes or no climate change, but would like to ask your oppinion on CCS (for those who don't know =carbon capture and storage). In my oppinion somehow it sounds pretty stupid that the people who yesterday cried about nuclearpower storing it's waste in the mountain now propose themselves to store their waste (co2) in the very same place, and even call it the "solution" to global warming. I find that rather stupid tbh. hi kinkulaattori, here is my opinion (based on general knowledge of the field, no specific expertship in this area). a) co2, even if it would come back to the earth is not so toxic as nuclearwaste; it would probably be dangerous for only very few people close to the site, and then it would go back up into the atmosphere (remember, CO" is a well mixed gas). b) It will not be a solution because it will diffuse back to the atmosphere in the end, it is just a question when. CSC - if it works - would just buy humanity a few decades of understanding the science better and getting the technology needed for a renewable only energy supply. I believe CSC is at the moment just one exploratory technology, not the solution it is made to be. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:39 storm8ring3r wrote: What is the incentive for a climate scientist to predict that everything is going to be okay I am a physicist working as a climate scientist. If I could find a serious flaw in all climate models and all data measurements and all climate reconstructions and all simple energy budget models (big if), I would be the most well know scientist on Earth, I assure you of that. I would come up with a new theory of decadal changes and would put up the best research programme on earth to understand that new prediction system. OR I would just go into consulting °J° -> bottom line: scientists are funded permanently (very few, they dont really care what they find out, they are safe) or in projects that run 1-3 years (big majority). this wouldnt change if climate change is not so drastic. over time the amount of money spend into scientifically boring projection exerciseswould spread back to understanding the complex Earth system. I would be happy about that, that would be the incentive, more real science, less politic exposure. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
in my mind Global Warming Fighters argue something like this: 1) world temperature is increasing, 2) due to human caused emissions, 3) this is really bad for us / this will be the end of the world. -----> 3a) temperature will reach a tipping point and the ecosystems will die -----> 3b) cities will be flooded and people will die I accept point 1 and 2, my major issue is with point 3. IMO this is where the message falls apart. I'll confess ignorance here first and foremost and say, i dont really know what point 3 is. I'm fully aware that I might be straw-manning here, but thats honestly the message I get when I listen to climate people talk about global warming. So what I would like, is to have point 3 clearly outlined. I'm unconvinced that a few degrees warmer will be the end of the world. I can accept that some animals will die out, but others will come take their place. I'm also unconvinced that sea levels will rise to the point where we cant deal with it. Like if a city actually gets flooded as a result of the sea, (eg: Holland actually becomes the next Atlantis) then i would be convinced that Global Warming is dreadful and we should cut resources from tech/development to fight climate change. But up to this point, the ZOMG END OF TEH WORLD argument reeks of hyperbole/fear mongering/political exploitation. which brings me to my second contention regarding global warming: The solution people tend to point to is regulating industries and recycling/personal conservation of energy ect. But in the grand scheme of world issues (war/poverty/overpopulation/starvation/epidemics/ect.), I think global warming has been placed too high on people's priority lists. I've heard david attenborough talk about how overpopulation should be the top issue to work on, but you barely ever hear the global warming crowd promote not having kids. Now I dont necessarily agree with Attenborough's case, but it is certainly a convincing argument. In fact, it could be argued that if you just poured a ton of cash into promoting education everywhere, we'd R&D ourselves out of any situation with the sudden explosions in scientists worldwide. Of course, that is a far fetched and unsupported idea, but I'm just using it to illustrate that there are many more efficient, more urgent, and more appropriate responses to global warming than just regulating industry. | ||
|
MCMXVI
Norway1193 Posts
Much more info here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 14 2011 04:46 Wegandi wrote: ... . Still wondering what solutions are available if it is shown that 1) Earth is warming 2) The Sun is the cause (wow, I know, this is a stretch :p). What are we to do about the Sun? Hi Wegandi. We have direct measurements of the strength of the sun of the last 35 years (satellites). The intensity is decreasing. Sun cannot be the cause for recent warming, it just is physically impossible. | ||
|
Carapas
Canada242 Posts
On December 14 2011 07:00 Thorakh wrote: So many misconceptions and myths in one post, it almost seems impossible. 1) If that were true that would be a good starting point. Cows are less important than everything and everyone that is going to dissappear. 2) The sun is not the cause of global warming. 3) Earth radioactivity, what? 4) We can feed and house everyone. 5) It makes no sense to you that people are 'going nuts' because our children will inherit a shitty world because we had too many dollar signs on the place our eyes should be? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic, what more proof do you want? Why would you rather believe shady people with no credentials who cite some stuff scientists said out of context, show some graphs that are either made up, statistically insignificant or only show a tiny period where a large period would be relevant, yell some stuff about conspiracies that involve money and boom, suddenly everyone is 'convinced' global warming is not real/not manmade. It's mind boggling really. Here's some food for thought, real food, with credible sources and all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8 And regardless, it's better we overdo it than that we don't do anything at all. Responding to your counter-arguments. 1)I don't know when the effect will kick-in if they eventually kick-in but considering the incapacity to predict meteo 1 day in advance I wouldn't be so sure about a 20 years prediction. 2)I never stated that the sun was the cause of the global warming, but the sun has different cycle which is called the solar cycle and that change the climat of our earth. In fact, the sun surely have more than 1 cycle but the most common has a duration of 11 years, which has an influence on the climat of 0,3 and this is the most common solar cycle. Now if you take in consideration that the other cycles have way bigger change on our climat then the climat change caused by human seems irrevelant. 3)http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/46592.jpeg) as you can see the center of our earth seems pretty hot doesn't it? That's what we call earth radioactivity. 4)Here is a little graph for ya http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/300px-Population_curve.svg.png do you still think that in 20 or even 50 years there will be enough food for everyone? 5)I just think that they will inherit a shitty world as we all did. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 14 2011 05:11 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I will be satisfied when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are causing climate change. Not when we find indications that when taken a certain way can possibly maybe just might happen to point to what could be human caused climate change; but when taken another way, don't support that conclusion at all. I will also be MUCH more satisfied that day arrogant people stop assuming things about people they don't fucking know. For your information, I look for climate change supporters when I look for information on the subject; and most of the time I am flabbergasted by the utter hypocrisy and flat out lies that they peddle. So I guess you could say it happens like this: People come up with ridiculous theory that can't be proven correct or incorrect (like any good conspiracy theory) They point to the "evidence" behind it, while ignoring the counter-evidence. They assert that "every scientist agrees". (As if science was democratic) They assert that they don't NEED proof or that it doesn't NEED testing. They make models and then act as though that is evidence for anything. Then they act like a prick when you happen to question them on it. Then I stop giving a fuck. so hi masterblastercaster, I admit that I do not think I will be able to convince you but I might reassure some other people that most of your arguments do not really have a solid basis to it. You write "I will be satisfied when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are causing climate change" That is a tough thing because it includes the word "reasonable". The best idea of how Earth operates and how it reacts to which type of forcings is currently incorporated in general circulation models of the atmosphere and ocean. Those are far from perfect and will certainly be proven wrong in specific aspects in the future (next gen phd students please °). However, as of the knowledge of today, we are virtually certain, much stronger than beyong reasonable doubt - that Earth is warming on a unprecedented rate, at least for the last few thousand years. - that there is no external forcing that can explain it (no change in solar activity that would be strong enough, no orbital change on this time scale, no strong volcanoes, no extinction event, nothing). As long as this stands in the scientific literature and conferences and so forth, we will tell society: if you emit CO2, you will warm Earth. The exact number is communicated with uncertainty attached to it. That#s it for science, now it is society that should act. W | ||
| ||
