A 1+ hour BBC produced documentary about how human CO2 emissions have little/nothing to do with current trends in temperature worldwide.
Google Video
Not that most of you didn't disagree with the theory before, I'm sure.
Printable View
A 1+ hour BBC produced documentary about how human CO2 emissions have little/nothing to do with current trends in temperature worldwide.
Google Video
Not that most of you didn't disagree with the theory before, I'm sure.
My Comments:
It's nice to see something speaking out about the subject. It's even nicer to see not only scientists from around the world but even one of the co-founders of Greenpeace speak about the subject.
Now. I'm all for not polluting. I currently drive a 16+ year old car that gets 30-35MPG and wouldn't mind riding a bike to work if it didn't mean arriving all sweaty. One of my ideal cars is a VW Golf TDi that gets 40+MPG on diesel (and I'd love to brew my own biodiesel, but that's more for the cost savings than anything else).
My Christian upbringing tells me that we [humans] are stewards of this Earth and everything on it. My moral compass says that the less we do to damage it, the better. I would mind nothing less than not depending (as a nation [the US]) on foreign oil for energy.
BUT MY GOODNESS THE GLOBAL WARMING CRAP HAS TO STOP!
I watched (in the theater, paying $8/ticket, no less) "The Day After Tomorrow" and regret every second of it. I should send Art Bell a bill for the 2 hours of my time and $16. As much as I loved listening to Coast-to-Coast last year, Art (nor anyone else on that show, ever) is not and should not be taken seriously as a scientist. The single most annoying line in the movie had to do with air coming down from the stratosphere and not warming up due to increase in pressure because "it's coming down too fast". I haven't watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the same reasons I haven't watched "Fahrenheit 911" and regret watching "Bowling for Columbine": I don't like wasting my time with inaccurate hippie-s4 reactionary emotional appeals for things I otherwise disagree with.
The parts in this documentary about developing countries in Africa are perhaps the saddest of all. I can't think of a continent that needs some form of modernization and development more than sub-Saharan Africa. The audacity of these 'environmentalists' to tell them that they need solar/wind or nothing instead of using the resources they have (oil/coal) is just... mind boggling.
I just hope that more people realize that 'global warming' is just cheap sensationalist fodder for the media.
PsychoI3oy
andQuote:
My Christian upbringing tells me that we [humans] are stewards of this Earth and everything on it. My moral compass says that the less we do to damage it, the better. I would mind nothing less than not depending (as a nation [the US]) on foreign oil for energy.
BUT MY GOODNESS THE GLOBAL WARMING CRAP HAS TO STOP!
I could not have said it better...Quote:
I just hope that more people realize that 'global warming' is just cheap sensationalist fodder for the media
Central to the film was the testimony of the MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch. Wunsch’s own account of how his material was edited and presented so as to give a misleading account of his actual views is here: http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece
Smokers like to rely on tobacco industry scientists for their science. It makes them feel better. They should ask the 99% of peer-reviewed experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the issue, but they don't.
Regardless of which science is right, the real question is, who should have the burden of proof? With smokers, it’s their body. With global warming, it’s everyone’s body.
My 2 cents.
DAMN The ENVIORMENT, FULL SPEED AHEAD!
[pirate] [pirate] [pirate]
Sorry, I just had too.
:mrgreen:
Take a look at what Al Gore spends each month in utilities. This is more than I pay in a year.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...338709247.html
It's those damn Americans in their SUVs!!! It's the industrialized nations that must screw up their economies to solve the problem!!!
The anti-capitalist pinkos have found a new home in the environmental movement. There are coal seam fires that have been burning out of control in China for decades that emit more noxious gasses than all of the cars in the US, but you don't hear a peep from the likes of Algore. A single large volcanic eruption puts out more noxious gasses than all of the industrialization in recorded history. The Exxon Valdez was "an environmental catastrophe", yet more oil leaks directly through the earth's crust into the oceans...and has been doing so since before man knew how to make implements from stone.
This human caused global warming crap stems from a belief in humanism. When one realizes how insignificant we beings are in the grand scheme, you realize how powerless you are to solve the problem...and how powerless you were to create the problem in the first place. It's the sun's fault, the earth will respond accordingly as it always has, and life will go on.
Now why in grade school in southern California in 1972 was I being taught in my ecology class that there was an impending ice age and that we'd be out of fossil fuels in 15 years? Do you mean somebody lied to me? :mrgreen:
NY Times: From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
Pardon me, Mr. Gore, but true "science" is not based on "consensus".Quote:
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Don't you think it's convenient that those who deny global warming are hosted by those most interested in convenience? i.e. us? You look up the dictionary definition of "bias" please, and be careful where you get your science. Try using scientists first.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Also, if you are going to follow the money on science, then I'm afraid you just trashed your own argument. The money lies in petroleum hydrocarbons and the same pocketbooks that fund the house of Saud: yours and mine.
You begin to argue you science yourself, but unless you can demonstrate your bona fides, I suspect you are just parroting what you've heard in the press, blogs, and what have you. I choose to rely upon the BTDT, Real Deal scientists, the vast, overwhelming majority of which agree that global warming is real, man contributes to it, the earth is round and cigarettes cause cancer. If you read their science, you will find they do consider many more variables than you suggest. But since I do get your drift, I bring you back to the question of burdens of proof. If you want to smoke, that’s your business, but if you blow your smoke in my face, that is my business, the business of my children and everyone else. If you can prove it won’t hurt, then fine, but that is your burden and on global warming, you’ve failed miserably and no credible (peer-reviewed) scientist agrees with you.
The scientists in the 70s argued global cooling because they analogized to volcanoes and particulate reflection, rather than green house holding of heat. But the process of peer reviewed science is one of progress, not regress, unless you get selfish, greedy protection of vested interests involved. Science is a process of learning, not staying the same. You’re argument comparing the 70’s to today is proof of that. Your argument is not unlike saying “Hey, we used to drag things so there can be no such thing as a wheel.”
I am using logic, and you are not. The science does not use grossly exaggerated temperature charts. Further, when you become a scientist and quit relying on Limbaugh logic, you will find there are other ways to determine temperature without NOAA stations. Do a little research. When you get your science peer reviewed, come back and tell me your expert opinion on ice gas readings, etc. It will be a myth when you can prove it’s a myth. But you can’t. That’s what I love about science.
Another thing you forget about science, when you sarcastically mention full-proof, is that science does not claim to be full-proof. It is a process that is under way. At this point in time, science is using that process, impeded only by those who don’t understand or participate in it. Right now, the vast, overwhelming majority of science has shifted the burden of proof to those who would deny global warming or it’s cause by man.
Did you just cite wikipedia?
[roll]
If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.
Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.
The lazy greed, selfishness and fear of inconvenience of many Americans is manifest in the this argument about Gore’s electric bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Gore is a hypocrite for using too much power. Carter is a laughing stock for turning down the heat in the White House and wearing sweaters. I guess no matter what one does, they will be dragged down by small minds, interested in their own convenience.
The simple fact of the matter is this: The Tragedy of the Commons dictates group action or tragedy. One man can do nothing good if his slack will be taken up by another bad man. All men must agree to protect the limited resource together. It’s the social contract. It’s the “enlightenment” in enlightened self interest. It’s the “properly understood” in self-interest properly understood.
That is the most intelligent thing said on this thread. The problem is, true science demonstrates global warming and man's contribution to it. It's those SUV drivers who want to vote on it. They know they will win because it would be inconenient to do anything about it. They have no faith in the ability of their vaunted economy to grow in response to a problem. They are more inclined the "sky is falling" argument if they have to actually grow, change, and progress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Who got suckered?Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!Quote:
Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:
Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.
Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.
You got suckered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
This is just another example of some guy in Colorado saying “It’s cold outside, there can be no global warming.” Or “I’ve smoked for seventy years, and I ain’t got cancer.” Anyone can go to the web (democracy, and voting on science?) and find articles they can spin in their direction. That does not make it science. Besides, if there were any credence to your interpretation of the figures, then why would the Bush Administration bury the discussion of it? Especially considering their stance on Global Warming? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/..._scientists_dc
You got suckered. Go see what the World Wildlife Fund has to say about the stats you cite. http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/ Remember the burden of proof. You want to play Russian Roulette with polar bears. I don’t.
You know what’s sad about this whole debate: the initial post in this thread discusses a made for T.V. movie created by a hack who cites a certain scientist for authority in proving his position. The scientist’s work actually undermines the hack and it was proven the hack took the scientist work out of context, spun it, and omitted critical portions of it. That is proof of the hackery. Hack is not ad homonym when it is true.
Yet people want to believe the hack instead of the scientist.
You don’t have to be a scientist to know how science works. I see it working on the global warming debate, among the scientists. One side is winning; the other is losing, badly.
You wouldn’t go to a gun control advocate to discern the history, operation and use of the M-16. You’d go to the experts. Those experts on global warming suffer the same frustration listening to the hacks, that we suffer listening to some gun control nut trying to speak intelligently about weapons.
Don't go putting words in my mouth. By doing so, you are doing the same damn thing the author of the T.V. show did (proven wrong by the scientists upon which he relied), and that which those who mistate the data and the position of the WWF did (proven wrong by the those upon whom they relied). YOu are also making my point. You are telling me what I said, but you are wrong. I didn't read your post beyond that because it is clear I'm not dealing with someone who has any analytical or critical reading skills. Doubt me? Then you show me where I ever said Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
To correct you, what I did say, is that I choose to rely upon the scientific experts in the field, the peer-reviewed scientists who have devoted their lives to science and scientific theory. You know, virtually every scientist in the world who has ever wieghed in on the subject. UNLESS AND UNTIL you can alter their positions, then I'll choose to rely on them, thank you. I am not a scientist. And, since you are not one of them either, not even one of the one in a thousand who disagree with them, then your position is not credible and it's based upon belief, faith and supposition.
Now, I would read on and see what else you said, but since you put words in my mouth, mistated my position, and appear to be doing exactly what the doubters of global warming do when faced with overwhelming evidence, I won't bother. They should at least stick to the science. It can be done. It is being done. By scientists. Global warming is being challenged daily, by scientists, but so far they keep coming up with global warming and our participation in it. I don't see scientists putting words in other scientists mouths. I see them utilizing the scietific process to challenge ideas. So far, the overwhelming wieght of the evidence is against your "scientists."
An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to show a distinction with a difference. You failed to do so. I referenced the history, use and operation of the M-16, not it's existence. Would you rely upon a gun control advocate to discuss those issues? Why not? You rely upon spin doctors to refute global warming. I go to the experts. It's not bending things to make them more appealing, it's trying to use an analogy you might understand. It stands, unimpeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Oh, and you are the one trying to shift the subject with your rants about commies and all that crap. That is not educated argument.
Proof that global warming causes birth defects...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o...1111435461.jpg
Twice, you "infer" something from what I said. You are mistaken. Again, don't infer. Just try to focus on what I actually said; not what your baseless assumptions and inferences would have me say.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
After your mistaken inferences, you again mistate my position regarding the analogy between global warming and M-16s. I said nothing about M-16s not existing. I referenced their history, use and operation. Would you ask a gun control nut about these issues, or would you ask an expert? Why don't you do the same regarding global warming? Ask an expert. Don't rely upon lay opinion with no expertise in the area.
Further, the consenus data has nothing to do with "people." Other than arguing against the idea of voting on the matter, or democratizing science, I've said nothing about "public opinion" or "the general public." It has to do with scientists. I'm sure more people than 1 in 1000 believe as you do. A great number of people think global warming is a myth. But they are not scientists and they are not relying upon science.
Finally, go look at the statistics on the scientists and you will find the ratio is indeed around 1 in 1000 who deny global warming is occuring and that humans play some roll in it. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed science which demonstrates global warming is not occuring and that humans have nothing to do with it.
My lawyer will be contacting you about the impending lawsuit for posting my baby pics on the net. [pirate]Quote:
Originally Posted by Atrain
I just saw a show and they said the un will release there findings ion globale warming 1000 scientests they also said there were 17000 apposing the un stance and then some of the Dr said because of there opposition to the reports they we reciving death threats and there funding was being cut ,Global warmming is false religon that the greens follow and they thry to make it fact when its not ,THE EARTH WILL NOT GO DOWN BY GLOBAL WARMMING ! [postal]
Card hangs most of his hat on alleged miss-use of a single bristlecone pine tree ring study that ends up in a U.N. report? His arguments are not unlike Creighton. There are only a few scientists who actually study global warming and the rest all mislead lap dogs? :roll: It’s a classic case of “The best defense is a good offense.” Forget bringing forth your own science.
Yeah, Card, it's all a world wide conspiracy lead by the Bush Administration, working hand in hand with his favorite people at the U.N. to limit petroleum hydrocarbon emissions based on feel-good science. Bush has caved in to Greenpeace and the press is burying the truth. [roll]
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Even if Card was right, his analysis of the burden of proof issue is lacking. Imagine all the money, misery and lives that would have been saved if asbestos study occurred on the front end. That's just one example of thousands.
In any event, as I said before, people can run to the web and find anything they want to support any position they want (contrary to Card's assertion of burial of the truth). It's all out there, it's just that the case for global warming is trouncing the case against it. As Card would say about his own case, and deny to the rest of the world: The evidence IS out there and no one is hiding it.
"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; for whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter." John Milton, Areopagitica.
No offense, but right back at you. Should everyone believe you because you say so?Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
I never said anyone should believe me because I say so. I said people should apply science, and in doing so, they might want to look to the scientists instead of those who like Cheighton and Card (non-scientists) who spin the science.
First folks tell me I say something I didn't say, then they are telling me what I think now? Priceless.Quote:
Id suggest actually reading the contents of that link as well. It doesnt say what you think it does.
No. The evidence speaks for itself, regardless of what I have to say about it. When interpreting that evidence, I tend to rely upon those who know more about it than I, they are pretty much of one mind, so far.Quote:
Evidence of co2 caused global warming is trouncing the case against it because you say so? 999/1000 scientists support global warming because you say so?
What the hell are you talking about? NOT NAMED? His name is Carl Wunsch. I gave you his name. His name heads the article in the link. Further, he is the guy that was relied upon as the basis for the channel 4 show that started this whole thread! So the channel 4 show cites him for authority but he doesn’t support the channel 4 show positions. Don’t you see the link between so much of the anti-global warming theory positions? It’s non-scientist, without their own science, claiming that scientists support them when those scientists don’t support them. It’s non-scientists telling other people what they said and what they think, just as you do here with me.Quote:
And this is the best, using every link you posted:
Link #1: http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece
Regarding: Mis-interpreted scientist
Author: Not named, supposivly professor of Physical Oceanography
Oceanography: A scientist who studies the ocean, its topography, and its inhabitants (source, Google definitions)
shouldn't have to point out this field of science is not, nor has any relation to climatology
Website Bias: Far Left
Proof: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Just read the headlines:
Voice for homosexuals: A hero in the fight for gay rights
Open skies pact will worsen climate change
Household waste may be taxed to encourage recycling
Freedom of Information Act Misused, says Falconer
Schools & Colleges: Big boost for education spending to improve training for teenagers
Oil Rich Kirkuk at melting point as factions clash
(could go on) Id say fully 1/3 of its headlines are far left leaning, with 2/3's either no political relation or not a modern political issue.
Then you claim his field is unrelated to the issue of climatology (you are wrong, by the way) while at the same time you attack the media in which his response is found on grounds that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It’s totally illogical. It would be like me attacking Card because he is LDS and doesn’t believe in Darwinian theory of evolution, not to mention some of his other “out there” ideas.
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?Quote:
Link #2:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/..._scientists_dc
Regarding: Memo to tell people on foreign government business not to discuss polar bears.
Note: Doesnt tell them what side to take or what opinons to have, simply says not to discuss it - which applies to both sides of the issue.
Despite the fact its the long standing (decades old) policy for government entities not to let individual peons dictate for the government what its official stance is, it fully allows them to speak on behalf of themselves.
Also Note: People that speak on behalf of the government represent the government that they are speaking for. Speaking on either side of the "polar bear" issue would represent our government has taken sides on it, which they have not. It is standard practice not to officially discuss anything your parent organization (corperation, government, employer) etc does not have an official stance on, unless you have the authority to make the parent organizations official opinons for it. Which, thank god, a single person does not have the right to do in this country.
Author: Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Bias: Far Left, based on the article stating repeatedly the Bush administration is trying to censor everything, in more or less words, and making a decades old policy and moral code sound like its a gop conspiracy, along with "greenhouse gas emissions spur global warming" quote, not a balanced article.
Mention of Greenhouse Gas Involvement: "might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming"
Proof of Greenhouse Gas Involvement: "Somebody named hall said so"
Oh, and as to the government position on these matters, especially the Bush Administration, go look at what it is. Global warming and man’s contribution to it has been accepted. Not under “feel-good” pressure, but because they kept getting bitch-slapped by the science at every turn, notwithstanding their best efforts to refute the science with science.
Again, if one side of an issue does not accept the position of the other side, they should not cite the other side for authority. Get that? As to the merits of your claim, I can only give you another analogy that you might understand. You know when someone is prosecuted for a crime and the state must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, that burden can be met by cumulative evidence. Each piece of evidence, in and of itself, may not make the case, but when you add up all the many factors, all the evidence going toward, time, motive, opportunity, etc. you can make your case. So, when you, or Card, or Creighton, or whoever try to hang your hat on one piece of evidence that won’t prove global warming by itself, you are nothing more than defense attorneys spinning hard when they don’t have a defense.Quote:
Link #3: http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/
Regarding: Polar Bears
Author: Not named
Site Bias: General Left
Mention of Greenhouse Gasses as the Cause: None
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: None
And I quote:
Climate change is causing the disappearance of sea ice from which polar bears hunt their prey. Research funded by WWF found that with less time on the ice to hunt for food and store it leaves polar bears hungry and hinders reproduction. If current climate trends continue unabated, polar bears could become extinct by the end of this century.
Sounds like a rock solid scientific statement implicating man made global warming to me.
I guess you don’t read so well. Hell, forget the EPA (which is in the Bush Administration); maybe you should check with the Bush Administration.Quote:
Link #3: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Regarding: Climate Change
Author: Various
Site Bias: Government Agency, mostly unbiased
Official Stance: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html
Derived:
What We know: Humans have contributed to greenhouse gas
What we do not know: What contribution to global warming humans and natural causes have made.
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: It hasnt yet been determined
Now, im pretty sure if "virtually every scientist" that has weighed in on this subject, 999/1000 according to your made up statistics, has stated anywhere that global warming is caused wholly, majorly, or even significantly by humans, the EPA (un-biased, slighly left government agency) site would at least make mention of that.
Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?
They dont.
The only proof you have posted is that there is no proof.
Suggestions: take your own advice. As for my links and what I said about them, the record speaks for itself. Each of those links submitted in response to a post in this thread that pretended to state the position of the primary source. The primary source refuted the proposition for which it was submitted.Quote:
Suggestions:
Read your links before you post them, to see if they actually support what your saying
Please look for unbiased, fact based data
Stop inventing statistics, supporting them up with "if you check, its probably close"
Sorry for posting this last time, but I felt it was necessary to prove a point.
Also, try to focus on what was said and not on who said it. It's more logical and you are less inclined to start waiving the "commie, pinko, liberal" bullshit which has nothing to do with the merits of a claim by some scientist who might be published in some journal you don't like.
I certainly hope you are not appologizing to me for your continued posting. No appologies necessary.
Time to hit the rack. Good night.
Yeah, I see the pattern. The WWF has a stated position that conflicts with the evidence, but you are seemingly blinded to it. Their hypothesis is in contradiction to the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
Following the true scientists, they will tell you that they have some theories, but there have been no direct links to CO2, solar variation, or industrialization. The environmentalists are still looking for a smoking gun. The assertions of those that support global warming caused by man are simply that. Their "evidence" does not follow the scientific method, as any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis renders the hypothesis as invalid. You explain your way out of that inconvenient truth by suggesting an unprovable conspiracy.
Yeah, I see the pattern. This is a religious argument for you.
You said:
The EPA said:Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
. . .
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html
I’ll not put words in your mouth, but I suspect you meant to say “climate change” and not “global warming.” You can help me out here. In any event, it would be funny to see the side that is challenging the shift in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” start hanging their hat on that very distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
First, your wrong about the “true scientists”:
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html
Second, you cite a falsehood as an inconvenient truth and suggest a conspiracy. That is in line with Card and "the best offense is a good defense" method of argument. Unfortunately, the fallacy is made apparent in your suggesting this is a religious argument for me. In fact, religion has little, if anything to do with science and relies mostly on unsupported belief. Nice try, though, in taking your greatest weakness and attributing it to the opposition. The WWF’s interpretation is in accord with their own data. Had you followed up on their link you would have seen it. You’re like the guy who argues 1+1 = 2 when the teacher is talking procreation. :roll:
Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?
Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>
"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.
If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.
I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...&cname=Opinion
I do know what virtual means, but as usual, your use of terms in this debate is innopposite. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say: "If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation." Since when is true science immune from opinion, consensus or interpretation? You, of all people, referencing the polar bear/WWF issue, should no that. :roll: Oh, and if we are going to attack sources (which I am not inclined to do), you should do a little research into the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS. Also find out if Exxon Mobile is funding Sterling Burnett (polar bear fame).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
As for your citation, again, anyone can run to the web for support for any position they want. The guy you cite is responding to a guy who responded to others. Too bad, as your author suggests, none of them are part of the scientific process. He is right, and should get back in his lab and start doing science. Right now he's nothing more than you and I arguing on the internet.
You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.
To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.
Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.
The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.
Now, I can agree with that, and I am glad you brought it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
The Earth’s capacity for additional green house gasses, natural or man made, without catastrophic results, is 100%. Clearly the catastrophic results have not occurred so we have not exceeded 100% capacity. Further, the atmosphere contains *some* green house gasses, so we are not at 0%. We are obviously somewhere in between.
You can plug in ANY figures you want, but the following analysis still remains valid.
Let’s say, without mankind, the Earth is currently at a 50% capacity baseline, with a 30% natural variability, up or down, fluctuating over the millennia, with a high of 80% and a low of 20%. Now, along comes man and adds 21%. That puts us at 71% and reduces the room for natural variability by 21%. If nature comes along with her 30%, then catastrophic results occur.
In other words, Earth’s tremendous ability to take a punch is reduced each time she gets punched. Sooner or later, she punches back. Of course, she will always win, but some of us would like to win with her, and be around to share the *relative* stasis which she has provided for the last 500,000 years that we’ve been wandering around with all the critters we have come to know and love. The fact the Earth will continue on was no consolation to the dinosaurs and it won’t be to me, my child or anyone else I know. I am very conservative in that regard.
Only the Earth and God know how much she can take, and that is what scientists are currently trying to understand. I say place the burden of proof on those who want to tinker with a system that ain’t broke. Let them first do no harm, and prove they won’t. Since we are all in this boat together, we can’t rely upon individuals to carry all the freight. Working together is the key to avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons. Ask any public land cattle grazer from the late 1800s and early 1900s.
So, while you would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of man-caused global warming, before man-caused global warming is accepted, I would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of no harm, before we are permitted to continue dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. If you can find a way to internalize your costs in our free market system, and accept personal responsibility for the outcome of your actions, then post a bond.
Oh, and if you try, remember not to cherry pick your data or use a cop-out of "virtuality."
The fact is, we are doing the best we can, and the science on your side is losing, badly.
Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.
The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.
You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.
First, I am not a scientist. The science speaks for itself and you are losing, badly. In fact, by your own standards, your post is lacking any science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
Second, you are wrong about burdens of proof. As you yourself admitted, the status quo (natural baseline and fluctuation) existed long before our present impact. It is us who wish to change it and the burden is on us. If the claim is that man's actions cause no harm, then the burden is on you.
Third, no burden of proof has been established on proponents of global warming theory (preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? etc.) and science, by it's very nature, soundly trounces your self-appointed demand for conclusive evidence. Proponents don't have to meet your subjective requirements of satisfaction. The political leadership has determined that any burden has been met and calls for changes. See Bush, the scientists and everyone who is not in denial.
Until the scientists can connect A and B by disambiguating the large chaotic system, the thesis that A causes B is not proven. The burden of proof is always on the one proposing the thesis-- that's how a robust epistemology (and rational debate) works.
Nothing subjective, nor is it "about me." That is simply the epistemology of the scientific method.
Politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge. Appealing to a political figure to determine truth is the logical fallacy of false authority. Calling us in denial is ad hominem, another logical fallacy.
This is where you need to bring your critical and analytical reading and reasoning skills into play. The EPA was not referring to the science; they were referring to the scientific level of certainty; i.e. scientists are vitually certain that the science demonstrates global warming and our contribution to it. Don't confuse the science with their opinion of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
First, scientists have connected A and B. The level of disambiguation of the large chaotic system is the question. They have come forward with a level which has been challenged. However, it is this level that you seek to be "proven" before it is accepted. These levels of *proof* (certainty) are a continuum, often catagorized as burdens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
We always start with a baseline, or status quo. In analyzing our contribution of green house gasses and the effects thereof, the baseline, by definition, is pre-human contribution. The burden is upon those who want to move beyond the baseline.
Now, as often happens, and as you are doing now, the proponents of an action prefer to shift the burden of harm to those who challenge the action. But that is not science. The burden is upon those who wish to go forward. So, rather than demand your subjective level of proof of harm, science (and the policy that comes from it) dictate a level of proof of no harm. That burden has not been met.
As much as you hate analogy, let me put it this way: YOu are going to take a revolver, point it at my head and pull the trigger. If anyone should have a burden of proving no harm will come, who should that be? I suggest the burden is upon you. If you can't prove your theory of no harm, don't be pointing revolvers at people and pulling the trigger. That is a political and policy decision that springs from sound science.
Finally, you don't understand argumentum ad vericundium. I did not appel to Bush for authority on the subject of global warming. I appealed to Bush to show you were the burden of proof had been placed, based upon sound science, and not upon your subjective demand for certainty.
As to the ad hominem allegation, denial is a state people can be in when they refuse to engage in that scientific process you so eloquently described. For instance, anyone who thinks politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge is living in denial.
I've gotta run to town. I will return and re-engage later. Thanks.