|
|
On September 25 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty  as well. For the record, xDaunt used to defend the idea that there currently was a global cooling trend instead of global warming. I distinctively remember replying to him with data proving he was wrong and him ignoring my posts. That was actually the first time I was confronted to his refusal to face facts :p
Yes, my data was out of date by about 2-3 years.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 10:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:04 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 09:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:41 SkyCrawler wrote:On September 25 2012 09:39 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well. Well people don't believe in buddha even when the vast majority of buddists tell us otherwise. But climatologists telling us the world is warming has nothing to do with whether it has a statistically significant casuational relationship correlation to carbon dioxide. Statisical correlation is really fucking easy too. That they have to use laughable science like the IPCC doesn't help their cause either. Please describe this laughable science you speak of. Normally in statistics you get a data set, you put it into your calculator, select the proper test for what you're measuring, and you get an answer. Then after that, if it's statistically significant, you try and show which of the two populations is the independent variable, and which is the dependent variable. The IPCC gets a group of scientists, who all think global warming is happening, and then they take data sets, which they choose, and assign the statistical significance to it. At they end, they then look at their assigned statistical significance, and decide how statistically significant it is. Amazing, the panel who all think global warming is real, and looked at data they choose to use and assume the statistical significance of, found that it was statistically significant that CO2 causes global warming. That's some brilliant science right there. To give an example, I want to find out what 4+4 is. I think the answer is 6. Now I could just calculate it and let the answer be what it is, or I could get people to form a panel, and poll them to declare a consensus for what the answer is. I also pick people who think the answer is around 5 and 7, but definately not 8. The IPCC discarded other normal statistical practices that are used to safeguard the integrity of their calculations, if you want me to keep going though. wot. The IPCC does not do their own original research, they merely build on and replicate research from other leading scientists in the field (and god are there a lot). If I remember correctly, that's what science is about, isn't it? Replicating results to prove accuracy and validity. The example you should be giving is, you read a textbook that tells you 4+4 = 8, but instead of blindly believing the textbook, you do the math yourself. In the end, you get the same result: 4+4 = 8. So 4+4 must be 8. The IPCC is not a good argument against global warming. Except that's not what the IPCC did. They didn't recalculate anything, they assinged what the significance was without calculating it. It even has the guidelines in which values they are allowed to assign. And even if they did, their entire body of work can be thrown out for failing scientific guidelines that mandate you must attempt to disprove your theory, not prove it, in order to avoid the self fulfilling prophecy fallacy. I don't think you've actually read their work.
Disprove WHAT theory? It's not THEIR theory. Once again the qualm you hold towards the IPCC is not a point against global warming. If you want to make the argument against global warming you'll have to disprove every single scientist's contribution to the existence of global warming. Scientists all over the world are publishing these reports and doing scientifically valid research, the IPCC is merely a body of volunteers.
|
On September 25 2012 10:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well. For the record, xDaunt used to defend the idea that there currently was a global cooling trend instead of global warming. I distinctively remember replying to him with data proving he was wrong and him ignoring my posts. That was actually the first time I was confronted to his refusal to face facts :p Yes, my data was out of date by about 2-3 years.
God dammit xdaunt, and right after I praised you for being logical...
|
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be.
|
On September 25 2012 10:29 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:19 xDaunt wrote:On September 25 2012 10:15 kwizach wrote:On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well. For the record, xDaunt used to defend the idea that there currently was a global cooling trend instead of global warming. I distinctively remember replying to him with data proving he was wrong and him ignoring my posts. That was actually the first time I was confronted to his refusal to face facts :p Yes, my data was out of date by about 2-3 years. God dammit xdaunt, and right after I praised you for being logical...
It really wasn't important. It was a classical example of relentless shitting on a minor issue rather than arguing the larger point.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be.
I'll be content with everyone just agreeing that the phenomenon exists. What we do from thereon out is another debate.
|
On September 25 2012 10:33 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be. I'll be content with everyone just agreeing that the phenomenon exists. What we do from thereon out is another debate.
Yay, agreement!
|
On September 25 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 10:04 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 09:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:41 SkyCrawler wrote:On September 25 2012 09:39 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well. Well people don't believe in buddha even when the vast majority of buddists tell us otherwise. But climatologists telling us the world is warming has nothing to do with whether it has a statistically significant casuational relationship correlation to carbon dioxide. Statisical correlation is really fucking easy too. That they have to use laughable science like the IPCC doesn't help their cause either. Please describe this laughable science you speak of. Normally in statistics you get a data set, you put it into your calculator, select the proper test for what you're measuring, and you get an answer. Then after that, if it's statistically significant, you try and show which of the two populations is the independent variable, and which is the dependent variable. The IPCC gets a group of scientists, who all think global warming is happening, and then they take data sets, which they choose, and assign the statistical significance to it. At they end, they then look at their assigned statistical significance, and decide how statistically significant it is. Amazing, the panel who all think global warming is real, and looked at data they choose to use and assume the statistical significance of, found that it was statistically significant that CO2 causes global warming. That's some brilliant science right there. To give an example, I want to find out what 4+4 is. I think the answer is 6. Now I could just calculate it and let the answer be what it is, or I could get people to form a panel, and poll them to declare a consensus for what the answer is. I also pick people who think the answer is around 5 and 7, but definately not 8. The IPCC discarded other normal statistical practices that are used to safeguard the integrity of their calculations, if you want me to keep going though. wot. The IPCC does not do their own original research, they merely build on and replicate research from other leading scientists in the field (and god are there a lot). If I remember correctly, that's what science is about, isn't it? Replicating results to prove accuracy and validity. The example you should be giving is, you read a textbook that tells you 4+4 = 8, but instead of blindly believing the textbook, you do the math yourself. In the end, you get the same result: 4+4 = 8. So 4+4 must be 8. The IPCC is not a good argument against global warming. Except that's not what the IPCC did. They didn't recalculate anything, they assinged what the significance was without calculating it. It even has the guidelines in which values they are allowed to assign. And even if they did, their entire body of work can be thrown out for failing scientific guidelines that mandate you must attempt to disprove your theory, not prove it, in order to avoid the self fulfilling prophecy fallacy. I don't think you've actually read their work. Disprove WHAT theory? It's not THEIR theory. Once again the qualm you hold towards the IPCC is not a point against global warming. If you want to make the argument against global warming you'll have to disprove every single scientist's contribution to the existence of global warming. Scientists all over the world are publishing these reports and doing scientifically valid research, the IPCC is merely a body of volunteers.
I see you're ignoring the part where you're wrong, and just focusing on the second part, where even if the IPCC aren't manipulating thing statistically, they still are failing scientific standards. As if it's ok to consider nonscientific research. Your thinking is brilliant.
I don't have to be all inclusive in every single one of my posts about all the failings of any science. I have a third layer of failure that the IPCC didn't provide. The IPCC doesn't shitty, unscientific work, that fails simple and rigorous guidelines. Some of them can't be over come because of the people who are doing the work. If you want I'll just bust out my old psych book and start quoting all the requirements of a scientific theory, and how you gather evidence for it.
On September 25 2012 10:33 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be. I'll be content with everyone just agreeing that the phenomenon exists. What we do from thereon out is another debate.
The phenomenon obviously exists. The world is constantly warming and cooling. We are talking about the obfuscation of data and definitions and scientific standards that are required for anything that people don't have an emotional attachtment to being correct about.
|
Honestly I've gotten to the point where I don't care if manmade global warming is real. It's about the stupidity of it being used to increase the size the government and infringe on our rights.
|
On September 25 2012 10:38 Darknat wrote:
Honestly I've gotten to the point where I don't care if manmade global warming is real. It's about the stupidity of it being used to increase the size the government and infringe on our rights.
I think there is a good argument to be made that companies freely doing whatever they want, and polluting our planet, directly infringes on the rights of all people, and our future generations, if manmade global warming IS real. So the fact you don't care if it is at all kind of makes me cringe. I understand being against it if you don't "believe" in it though, since then there wouldn't be a need, but to say if it is real, us doing something about it is bad... wow.
Government already regulates many things, including pollution, before global warming became a big deal, so I don't think it's making government that much bigger in the name of global warming.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 10:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 10:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 10:04 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 09:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:41 SkyCrawler wrote:On September 25 2012 09:39 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty as well. Well people don't believe in buddha even when the vast majority of buddists tell us otherwise. But climatologists telling us the world is warming has nothing to do with whether it has a statistically significant casuational relationship correlation to carbon dioxide. Statisical correlation is really fucking easy too. That they have to use laughable science like the IPCC doesn't help their cause either. Please describe this laughable science you speak of. Normally in statistics you get a data set, you put it into your calculator, select the proper test for what you're measuring, and you get an answer. Then after that, if it's statistically significant, you try and show which of the two populations is the independent variable, and which is the dependent variable. The IPCC gets a group of scientists, who all think global warming is happening, and then they take data sets, which they choose, and assign the statistical significance to it. At they end, they then look at their assigned statistical significance, and decide how statistically significant it is. Amazing, the panel who all think global warming is real, and looked at data they choose to use and assume the statistical significance of, found that it was statistically significant that CO2 causes global warming. That's some brilliant science right there. To give an example, I want to find out what 4+4 is. I think the answer is 6. Now I could just calculate it and let the answer be what it is, or I could get people to form a panel, and poll them to declare a consensus for what the answer is. I also pick people who think the answer is around 5 and 7, but definately not 8. The IPCC discarded other normal statistical practices that are used to safeguard the integrity of their calculations, if you want me to keep going though. wot. The IPCC does not do their own original research, they merely build on and replicate research from other leading scientists in the field (and god are there a lot). If I remember correctly, that's what science is about, isn't it? Replicating results to prove accuracy and validity. The example you should be giving is, you read a textbook that tells you 4+4 = 8, but instead of blindly believing the textbook, you do the math yourself. In the end, you get the same result: 4+4 = 8. So 4+4 must be 8. The IPCC is not a good argument against global warming. Except that's not what the IPCC did. They didn't recalculate anything, they assinged what the significance was without calculating it. It even has the guidelines in which values they are allowed to assign. And even if they did, their entire body of work can be thrown out for failing scientific guidelines that mandate you must attempt to disprove your theory, not prove it, in order to avoid the self fulfilling prophecy fallacy. I don't think you've actually read their work. Disprove WHAT theory? It's not THEIR theory. Once again the qualm you hold towards the IPCC is not a point against global warming. If you want to make the argument against global warming you'll have to disprove every single scientist's contribution to the existence of global warming. Scientists all over the world are publishing these reports and doing scientifically valid research, the IPCC is merely a body of volunteers. I see you're ignoring the part where you're wrong, and just focusing on the second part, where even if the IPCC aren't manipulating thing statistically, they still are failing scientific standards. As if it's ok to consider nonscientific research. Your thinking is brilliant. I don't have to be all inclusive in every single one of my posts about all the failings of any science. I have a third layer of failure that the IPCC didn't provide. The IPCC doesn't shitty, unscientific work, that fails simple and rigorous guidelines. Some of them can't be over come because of the people who are doing the work. If you want I'll just bust out my old psych book and start quoting all the requirements of a scientific theory, and how you gather evidence for it.
This is pretty much the crux of your argument on the issue. You love being selective with your data while criticizing someone else (the IPCC) for being selective with their data. There are many problems with the IPCC that are a consequence of being hugely unfunded - however, the research that every other scientist in the field does that is submitted to the IPCC is another issue all together. If you want to disprove global warming, that's where you start, by telling all of these scientists across the globe why they're wrong. Good luck with that.
Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:33 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be. I'll be content with everyone just agreeing that the phenomenon exists. What we do from thereon out is another debate. The phenomenon obviously exists. The world is constantly warming and cooling. We are talking about the obfuscation of data and definitions and scientific standards that are required for anything that people don't have an emotional attachtment to being correct about.
Actually, no, I was talking about people merely agreeing that global warming exists, as Republicans have a hard time accepting that fact. If we can get the likes of Michele Bachmann to agree that global warming is not just another act of God and that we're not gonna be okay if this persists, I think it will be a victory for mankind.
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. I'm tired getting all of these fucking calls from pollsters wanting to know where I stand on the election. I get like 5 per day. Living in a battleground state sucks.
|
On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious.
Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change.
|
On September 25 2012 11:40 xDaunt wrote:
Jesus Christ. I'm tired getting all of these fucking calls from pollsters wanting to know where I stand on the election. I get like 5 per day. Living in a battleground state sucks.
It always blows my mind the amount of money that is thrown away during US elections -- on polling, advertising, rallies, the conventions -- which is probably why the US has so many of them.
|
On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change.
From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though.
|
On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change.
The natural CO2-change is a question of the carbon cycle. Natural CO2-change is rather cyclic, but with so many different cycles that the CO2.-level will be close to neutral over years (still having some local seasonal fluctuations). The thing changing the amount of CO2 in the air is introduction of carbon bound in an almost passive system and introducing it to the active system. The passive system is stone coal, oil and other amounts caught in lower layers of the earth. The active system is the near surface soil, water and air. That is the short answer.
|
On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though.
hasn't that been common knowledge for years? If you look at the graph it is painfully obvious. My understanding was that there was an idea was that there wasn't necessarily a correlation between CO2 and the earth's rise in temperature based on ice cores/etc.
Personally I think the problem is much more complicated than that, I mean what did the geography of the planet look like from when the ice cores were taken? Where were the continents? Also did they take into account CFC's, hole in the ozone, methane, deforestation, currents, etc.
It seems to me that its obvious that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and producing more of it will warm the planet. We have massive deforestation and much more CO2 so ;\
|
On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though.
I get that. But then I see graphs like this:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png)
Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming.
|
On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be.
That's why global warming is a terrible name. It is "global climatic disruption." You can't predict what will happen, that's the point of a chaotic system. That's why you A) stop pumping carbon out of sinks (i.e. fossil fuel deposits) and into the carbon cycle and B) get ready for the shit to hit the fan (i.e. get away from globally integrated economy susceptible to catastrophic failure in favor of multiply redundant/locally sustainable systems)
There's absolutely no question as to what the best policy response is, which is to heavily tax fossil fuels and use the proceeds to subsidize localization and research into sustainability (including, critically, redesigning American cities away from the automobile).
When the stakes are as high as they are, you don't sit around with your head in the sand because the data is "inconclusive" (which, by the way, it isn't, but even if it were you would still do exactly what I say).
edit: There are, moreover, reasons to do all of these things totally independent of global climatic disruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
