|
On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. ![[image loading]](http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif) So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right?
When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask?
It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so.
Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science!
|
Sure, but why does it get so much political and media attention in comparison to all other ecological problems?
I can write of the top of my head 10+ other ecological problems that are of similar severity to climate change (and some of them are potentially even more serious than climate change):
- Air pollution
- Water misuse
- Soil erosion
- Pesticide drift
- Deforestation
- Nitrogen cycle disruption
- Potassium cycle disruption
- Overfishing
- Wildlife habitat loss
- Poaching and species extinction
- Human overpopulation
Why are these problems barely paid attention to in the media?
|
On September 29 2013 04:59 YumYumGranola wrote:
<insert tired idea already disproven/can be disproven with 10 minutes research, eg we haven't warmed in last 15 years, etc> On September 29 2013 09:11 YumYumGranola wrote:
Wow, it's like you were trying to fit every single nonsensical, already disproved climate denier argument into a single post. If only you'd gotten the whole "CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around" you'd have hit the whole cavalcade of "things I believe only because I don't bother to check facts".
It's amazing to me that so many people on the denier side of this argument are SO SURE that they're being lied to by the general scientific community, and yet they will unquestioningly believe the most ridiculous things. I'm not sure if irony is the right word to describe it, but it feels like it is.
On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:
So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. On September 29 2013 10:24 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Additionally, its totally untrue that we've had cooling in the past decade; the top 10 warmest years on record, have all been in the last 15.
This fiery rhetoric is especially jarring in light of the fact that it is simply wrong. Don't be so dogmatic.
The OP study itself agrees with the fellow you all are lambasting.
What the Climate Report Concedes
In all sorts of ways, the report climbs down from what was said six years ago, yet like any bureaucratic committee, it does its utmost to disguise these retreats. Professor Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, an economist and forecaster who has made a specialty of examining and challenging the IPCC’s pronouncements, summarizes the latest proclamation thus: “Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
So here are some of the things the IPCC has now conceded:
- Global average temperatures did not rise at all for the last 15 years. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” This was a fact skeptics were vilified for pointing out just two years ago. [emphasis added]
- Climate sensitivity (the amount of warming likely to be caused eventually, if carbon dioxide levels double) can no longer even be calculated. “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” The bottom end of the range of probable climate sensitivity has been lowered, however, from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while the top end remains the same: 4.5 degrees Celsius. This broadens the range of possible outcomes—that is, increases the uncertainty.
- Transient climate response (the actual warming likely to be experienced by around 2080 if carbon dioxide levels have doubled from pre-industrial levels by that time) is now thought to be less than they thought four years before. It is now thought to be in the range 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, rather than 1 to 3 degrees Celsius.
- Antarctic sea ice increased, instead of decreasing as predicted: “Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations.” This is awkward. If the models get the Antarctic wrong, then maybe they got the Arctic right by accident.
- The big concession is the one the one IPCC cannot quite bring itself to be explicit about: the failure of the models to match reality. The text of the summary released today says: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” Yet a chart in the draft of its full report, due out on Monday, tells a very different story, of actual temperature measurements over the past 23 years falling below the projections made on each of four previous occasions. Its own chart says, in other words, that it is unlikely that the models are right.
It’s a shame the climate debate remains so heated. Perhaps someday the rhetoric surrounding climate change can cool down to reflect the modesty of the predictions we’re actually able to make.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
|
What do they teach in schools about climate change? I've heard in some schools they try to present two sides to the argument to make a fake 'objective' point, much like how the media works in the western world. Is that true?
Another thing, having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less.
|
On September 29 2013 13:49 stroggozzz wrote:
having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less.
Really? That's strange. I could have sworn I just recently heard about Africans poisoning water holes to massacre endangered Elephants en-masse.
That's only the latest in a continuous string of atrocious treatment of the environment I hear come from developing countries.
In my experience reality is exactly opposite to what you claim. It is affluent Western people who seem to care the most about the environment.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On September 29 2013 12:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right? When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask? It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so. Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science!
yes, science can be quite driven by political concerns especially when the government is involved. People respond to incentives, do you really expect scientists to be an exception?
|
On September 29 2013 14:37 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 12:54 Leporello wrote:On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right? When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask? It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so. Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science! yes, science can be quite driven by political concerns especially when the government is involved. People respond to incentives, do you really expect scientists to be an exception?
General appeals to the fallibility of people do a poor job of arguing the point that specifically this bit of climate science is flawed beyond recompense.
|
On September 29 2013 13:57 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:49 stroggozzz wrote:
having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less. Really? That's strange. I could have sworn I just recently heard about Africans poisoning water holes to massacre endangered Elephants en-masse. That's only the latest in a continuous string of atrocious treatment of the environment I hear come from developing countries. In my experience reality is exactly opposite to what you claim. It is affluent Western people who seem to care the most about the environment.
only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world.
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdf
Much of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example.
I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On September 29 2013 14:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 14:37 419 wrote:On September 29 2013 12:54 Leporello wrote:On September 29 2013 10:27 Taf the Ghost wrote:On September 29 2013 09:56 ZeaL. wrote:On September 29 2013 09:33 -VapidSlug- wrote:On September 29 2013 06:27 BillGates wrote:As of today we've not had any warming for 17 years going 18, and we've had slight cooling in the past almost 10 years. So not only has there been no warming, there has actually been a slight cooling for 10 years.
Plus the warming is completely natural, its completely normal, humans if they have any effect its probably 0.1% or something smaller.
I mean cosmic rays, magnetism of the earth, sun spots, sun eruptions, alignment of planets, change in the weather patterns, etc... all have major contributions to the climate and we humans likely have 0.1% and less of influence in the global temperature. How do people ignore this fact that there has been no warming for almost a couple decades? Of course, when there IS a single warmer year or 2 less inches of snow, all of the "scientists" are there to make it the highlight of their climate change careers, but a quarter of a century of cooling could happen and its chalked up as anecdotal "weather, not climate." In the 70's it was global cooling and inevitable ice age so we all die from starvation, in the 90s it was global warming and... less ice around and Al Gore's beachfront property might be destroyed? Neither of those ended up happening so now it's "climate change." I wish I could simply change words and entire definitions every time I was wrong. To me, the ramblings involving CO2 and carbon (yeah, they are quite a bit different but over the last 10 years have been 1984'd into interchangeable terms) all look like they came out of a cheap B-movie. So you throw out a bunch of talking points and wonder "how do people ignore something that has been shown to be incorrect a billion times over"? It's pretty telling usually when people criticize professionals in their field using "common sense" and conspiracy theories... Pretty much no one who has taken the time to pore over the research methods and data global warming researchers use for their analyses comes to a different conclusion. I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I am however, an evolutionary biologist and have endured all sorts of shit from ignorant folks so I sympathize greatly with climate researchers. The people who think there is some crazy conspiracy theory to have "big government" carry out some nefarious scheme simply haven't been around science enough to know that the logistics would have to be insanely complex for that to occur. Oh, this is just WAY too easy that I have to needle on this one. So, you're apparently a paid scientist and yet you linked a.... Trough to Peak graph without confidence intervals. I'm not sure if I should be so cruel as to toss a "Irreducibility!" at you or not, but if you wonder why the responses to these types of reports went from everyone going all Chicken Little to "Eh, no one cares" (which is about how this one went, actually), that's a good reason why. Now, Trough to Peak is a great way to sell Stocks, Bonds or get Investor funding, but it's a terrible way to make an argument. And you know better. I was going to type something up in response to others, but I'll just sum up the point here. The Data sets are still terrible, the models are all over the place, the scientists have encouraged the Media to use "Climate Change" as a boogeyman more than any possible reality, and the ideas that are pushed for are something right out of Soviet Central Planning from 1935. This is why the next report might not even make the news, because no one is even going to care. This isn't the first time it's happened in Science and it won't be the last. Yet there are still massive problems, world wide, that need to be addressed and this doesn't help those one bit. But, hey, a few people got to hold a press conference, right? When was the first time "in science", that "this" happened, dare I ask? It's a graph. Argue that the data on the graph is wrong, show why it's wrong. Your argument is so dismissive, sensational, unsubstantiated, political, and I'd say nonsensical as well. The graphs are all wrong because they're trough to peak, and all the data is terrible, models all over the place, all because you say so. Boy, sign me up, you've totally changed my mind. These scientists are pushing that science agenda for their science jobs so that the government can take more tax dollars. Because science is what lobbies our government and hires Public Relation firms to cultivate a culture for their products. Look at all of our ex-Senators and Congressmen that retire from public service only to sign up with that "Big Science Lobby". That durn science! yes, science can be quite driven by political concerns especially when the government is involved. People respond to incentives, do you really expect scientists to be an exception? General appeals to the fallibility of people do a poor job of arguing the point that specifically this bit of climate science is flawed beyond recompense.
Wasn't trying to, was just trying to point out that scientists are not immune from the parts of human nature that keep us from being completely objective.
|
On September 29 2013 14:44 stroggozzz wrote:only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdfMuch of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example. I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food.
It doesn't seem to be a "very important issue" when you look at the facts rationally. It appears to be a complete non-issue.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming.
Furthermore, you are also mistaking faith in global warming for caring about the environment. An African who says "yes I believe in global warming!" then turns around and massacres endangered species to sell their tusks as traditional Chinese medicine isn't much of an environmentalist compared to someone who is skeptical of global warming but supports protection of endagered species.
You need to take a step back and reflect on your own posts. You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences.
|
On September 29 2013 13:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
Sure, but why does it get so much political and media attention in comparison to all other ecological problems?
I can write of the top of my head 10+ other ecological problems that are of similar severity to climate change (and some of them are potentially even more serious than climate change):
- Air pollution
- Water misuse
- Soil erosion
- Pesticide drift
- Deforestation
- Nitrogen cycle disruption
- Potassium cycle disruption
- Overfishing
- Wildlife habitat loss
- Poaching and species extinction
- Human overpopulation
Why are these problems barely paid attention to in the media?
I have no idea about what water misuse entails?
Air pollution has a lot of overlap with climate change debate. Most significantly, will the reduction in fossil fuels reduce the pollution from cars and to a lesser degree coal fired electricity and heat production.
Soil erosion depends. However some of the effects are exacerbated by higher carbonic acid concentration and thus lower pH. There are significant nitrogen cycle problems that might need help as much or more on this issue, though.
Nitrogen cycle disruption is extremely non-specific. However, as far as I understand the burning of fossil fuels is a significant part of the what of the problem. Therefore that part of the solution is one of the same as in climate change.
Deforestation is removal of a carbon-sink. It is pretty huge in terms of contributing to global warming. Therefore the means to stop it benifits both.
Wildlife habitat loss is to some degree already a result of climate changes. The expected changes to climate will only make that contribution larger.
Phosphor cycle disruption (I expect that is what you meant?) is again very non-specific. I think it is independent from climate change and has to do with waste water management and aricultural legislation, but again...
Climate science does nothing against overfishing (EU already has heavy regulation to prevent this), poaching (already illegal globally. More enforcement is the only possible improvement here), pesticide drift (heavily regulated area in EU by several means), human overpopulation (not necessarily as much of a problem as it is a potential problem in the future).
A lot of the non-climate change problems you mentioned already has significant legislation in EU and probably to some degree most other countries. Most of the rest have significant subsets relying on specific climate change solutions. Climate change is more of an umbrella of different tools to curtail a host of other problems too. There are senseless ideas that only effect climate science but on the bigger issues (energy production, transport and anti deforestation) the secondary benefits are significant.
Edit: Oh the irony of spelling phosphor wrong!
|
On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 14:44 stroggozzz wrote:only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdfMuch of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example. I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food. It doesn't seem to be a "very important issue" when you look at the facts rationally. It appears to be a complete non-issue. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. Furthermore, you are also mistaking faith in global warming for caring about the environment. An African who says "yes I believe in global warming!" then turns around and massacres endangered species to sell their tusks as traditional Chinese medicine isn't much of an environmentalist compared to someone who is skeptical of global warming but supports protection of endagered species. You need to take a step back and reflect on your own posts. You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences.
I've read a few climate change reports, the IPCC is the most mild of the ones i read. There was one done by MIT in 2012 that predicted a scenario worse than the worst case scenario in the IPCC. Yes i have faith in the scientific method, and the scientists that carry out these investigations. Humans can't know everything, otherwise they would be god. They have to have faith in 99.999% of stuff. And from my experience i would rather put my faith in a massive group of scientists than the media or my next door neighbor about the facts on climate change.
Why are you pointing so hard at this african that destroys the environment? There are millions of african farmers that will suffer from droughts, and Indians in Calcutta already suffer a lot from salinization and droughts. They are far more compromised about what they can do about the environment compared to people that earn 1million$ a day.
Im not making an argument for people destroying the environment being immoral. We are all compromised, we all destroy the environment to some degree, but some people are more compromised between money and values than others.
The fact is america, canada, cause a lot of harm to the environment and want to take no responsibility for it. Where as developing countries actually are taking more responsibility for it, even though they are more compromised. Anyone who looks at the Kyoto protocol can see that. New Zealand isn't doing much either.
And it's easy to see why, because being taxed on emissions would harm a corporations goal to maximize their short term profits(not their long term or their grandchildren profits)
And wealth and intelligence don't correlate. Wealthy people have access to more/better education, but they also share each others values and opinions when living in a plutocracy. I can't help but think that some of them don't want to believe the facts about climate change, as it's a conflict to their interests.
|
You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences.
Wow, really.....
This thread is starting to become silly - yet it's always baffling how prevailing such sentiments are/have become. Kudos to the people taking their time to repy
|
On September 29 2013 16:01 stroggozzz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:On September 29 2013 14:44 stroggozzz wrote:only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america, rating it below a bunch of other less important things you can see in this study. These are the people with the most political power in the world. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/cab/CAB2012 - Page1.pdfMuch of GHG emissions in other nations is western owned as well. Capitalist owned manufacturers in china for example. I mean india/nepal which is set to rapidly increase their number of cars and GHG over the next years. Does that mean they don't care about climate change? Well, definitely not the poor people who work all day in crops which are drying up. They are going to lose both their jobs and their food. It doesn't seem to be a "very important issue" when you look at the facts rationally. It appears to be a complete non-issue. http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/27/what-the-climate-report-concedes/Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming. Furthermore, you are also mistaking faith in global warming for caring about the environment. An African who says "yes I believe in global warming!" then turns around and massacres endangered species to sell their tusks as traditional Chinese medicine isn't much of an environmentalist compared to someone who is skeptical of global warming but supports protection of endagered species. You need to take a step back and reflect on your own posts. You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences. I've read a few climate change reports, the IPCC is the most mild of the ones i read. There was one done by MIT in 2012 that predicted a scenario worse than the worst case scenario in the IPCC. Yes i have faith in the scientific method, and the scientists that carry out these investigations. Humans can't know everything, otherwise they would be god. They have to have faith in 99.999% of stuff. And from my experience i would rather put my faith in a massive group of scientists than the media or my next door neighbor about the facts on climate change. Why are you pointing so hard at this african that destroys the environment? There are millions of african farmers that will suffer from droughts, and Indians in Calcutta already suffer a lot from salinization and droughts. They are far more compromised about what they can do about the environment compared to people that earn 1million$ a day. Im not making an argument for people destroying the environment being immoral. We are all compromised, we all destroy the environment to some degree, but some people are more compromised between money and values than others. The fact is america, canada, cause a lot of harm to the environment and want to take no responsibility for it. Where as developing countries actually are taking more responsibility for it, even though they are more compromised. Anyone who looks at the Kyoto protocol can see that. New Zealand isn't doing much either. And it's easy to see why, because being taxed on emissions would harm a corporations goal to maximize their short term profits(not their long term or their grandchildren profits) And wealth and intelligence don't correlate. Wealthy people have access to more/better education, but they also share each others values and opinions when living in a plutocracy. I can't help but think that some of them don't want to believe the facts about climate change, as it's a conflict to their interests.
I am only trying to get you to understand simple logic.
If you came up to me and said "give me $10,000 right now or I will die" I would tell you to take a hike. That would not, however, mean I wish you to die. It would mean I don't believe in your premise that I have to pay you to save your life.
Wealthy Westerners not believing in global warming doesn't mean they don't care about the environment. It means they don't believe in your "if x then y" apocalyptic scenario.
I keep mentioning developing nations' abysmal track record on environmental protection because you made a claim (namely that people in developing nations care more about environmentalism) that was frighteningly detached from reality and I am trying to bring you down to earth. All my life the green movement has been lead and promoted by Western nations, primarily the well off middle or upper classes of those nations. Meanwhile developing nations have been devastating the environment in shockingly cruel and uncaring ways--like mass poisoning of endangered species--while Western charities desperately try to intervene and stop the damage.
You seem to be confusing means with desire. Sure, African poachers don't have a metaphorical "nuclear bomb" to kill all elephants, but they sure do kill as many as they can with the means available to them.
|
On September 29 2013 16:15 blomsterjohn wrote:Show nested quote +You are like someone saying that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus wants everyone to burn in Hell for all eternity. The issue is they don't share your faith, and therefore don't believe in your imaginary consequences. Wow, really..... This thread is starting to become silly - yet it's always baffling how prevailing such sentiments are/have become. Kudos to the people taking their time to repy
My statement is very coherent and logical. If you follow the thread of conversation you will probably understand. Let me assist you:
stroggozzz: "having been to developing countries i see people care far more about the environment/climate change than here, even though they have much less. "
myself: "Really? That's strange. [...] In my experience reality is exactly opposite to what you claim. It is affluent Western people who seem to care the most about the environment."
stroggozzz: "only 16% of the people who earn more than $1million a year think climate change is a very important issue in america"
As you can see stroggozzz fallaciously assumed everyone agrees with him that a) global warming is real and b) it will have disastrous consequences. Thus he erroneously concludes people who don't see it as a serious issue simply don't care about the consequences he believes will result.
In context my analogy is perfect. Someone with a faith based belief (Christian) meets a skeptic (non-Christian) and then wrongly claims that the disbeliever secretly believes in but doesn't care about the consequences (eternal damnation) rather than simply not believing in the supposed consequences that believers claim will happen if you don't follow their rules.
If that is still confusing to you I used a different analogy in my later post:
If you came up to me and said "give me $10,000 right now or I will die" I would tell you to take a hike. That would not, however, mean I wish you to die. It would mean I don't believe in your premise that I have to pay you to save your life.
Surely you understand now, yes?
|
On September 28 2013 23:10 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 22:21 Slydie wrote:
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close! The problem is not that the world will be a fraction of a degree warmer, the problem is that over a long period of time the increased temperature will, according to physics models, cause the release of even more carbon emissions (from naturally captured carbon) pushing the greenhouse effect beyond our control. We have an example of what runaway greenhouse effect looks like in the long run, it's Venus.
Afaik most scientists would agree that the runaway greenhouse is NOT a likely outcome for Earth, even if we burned all fossil fuels available. It's true that the sun is hotter than back in the days when the CO2 levels were much higher, but the fact that Earth was going through an Ice Age very recently shows that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were extremely low to begin with.
On geological time scales CO2 is removed from the atmosphere - an effect which is at least partly responsible for the relatively cold climate including Ice Ages in the last geological era - and human emission is unlikely to have lasting consequences beyond a point several 10000 years in the future (still enough to hurt ourselves). The Ice Ages will come back eventually.
( In all likelihood all plants will die because of a lack of CO2 in a few hundred million years - way before the Sun boils away the oceans in a billion years or so. But that's all so far away, we shouldn't concern ourselves with it  )
|
Here's an interesting article that puts the extreme alarmism over global warming and the proposed "solutions" into perspective.
A question for Oreskes – But what do we mean by consensus?
Australia emits just 1.2%[25],[26] of global anthropogenic CO2. No more than 5% of Australia’s emissions can now be cut this decade, so no more than 0.06% of global emissions will be abated by 2020. Then CO2 concentration will fall from the now-predicted 410 μatm[27] to 409.988 μatm. In turn, predicted temperature will fall, but only by 0.00005 Cº, or 1/1000 of the minimum detectable global temperature change. This is mainstream, consensus IPCC climatology.
The cost of this minuscule abatement over ten years will be $162 billion[28], equivalent to $3.2 quadrillion/Cº. Abating just the worldwide mean warming of 0.17 Cº predicted for this decade would cost $540 trillion, or $77,000/head worldwide, or 80% of ten years’ global GDP[29]. No surprise, then, that in the economic literature the near-unanimous consensus is that mitigation will cost more than adaptation[30],[31]. The premium vastly exceeds the cost of the risk insured. The cost of immediate mitigation typically exceeds by 1-2 orders of magnitude that of eventual adaptation.[32]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/07/a-question-for-oreskes-but-what-do-we-mean-by-consensus/
|
The more I hear about global warming, the more skeptical I am about it.
Compare how much water vapor there is the atmosphere to how much CO2 there is. Next, realize that water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Finally, think about things such as the Ice Age of the Cretaceous period. The planet's climate changes quite a lot on its own.
Even if the human race has released a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, is it really enough to change the climate over the course of ~100 years? Hard to say..
|
On September 29 2013 15:44 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 13:24 Alex1Sun wrote:
Sure, but why does it get so much political and media attention in comparison to all other ecological problems?
I can write of the top of my head 10+ other ecological problems that are of similar severity to climate change (and some of them are potentially even more serious than climate change):
- Air pollution
- Water misuse
- Soil erosion
- Pesticide drift
- Deforestation
- Nitrogen cycle disruption
- Potassium cycle disruption
- Overfishing
- Wildlife habitat loss
- Poaching and species extinction
- Human overpopulation
Why are these problems barely paid attention to in the media? I have no idea about what water misuse entails?
I think it means wasting drinking water by flushing toilets with it, bathing etc., instead of using it just for drinking and cooking.
|
On September 29 2013 15:12 Zaqwe wrote:
Consider that intelligence and income are somewhat correlated. Your pdf suggests that the more intelligent someone is, the less likely they will fall for the doomsaying about global warming.
I am sure all those stocktraders know the finer details of the science behind global warming.
Come on, yes an intelligent person most likely will earn more money simply due to how the modern system is structured. But just as a carpenter most likely doesn't know how Itō calculus work, a rich person most likely does not understand how the extremely complex details of the global interactions in The Earth's ecosystem work.
The scientists that actually know what they are talking about are a minority in the "rich-spectrum" of the population. I'd be more interested viewing how scientists in the related fields consider "the doomsaying about global warming" than what the random layman thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
