If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada.com)   One of the founding prophets of the Church of Global Warming questions his own faith   (tinyurl.com) divider line 174
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2007 at 6:41 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-05 02:50:32 PM
Manfred Richthofen: I studied in physics lab that cost millions of dollars designed to conduct experiments on laser and quantum physical mechanics.

We'll expand my initial assertion to include physics.

calling for more experiment

They were calling for ANY experiment.
 
2007-03-05 02:52:06 PM
towatchoverme: You gave the appearance of denying the charge, yet didn't.

Well spun.


I do not ascribe to any political party's ideal(s). There is a reason my voter registration card reads "unaffiliated" under "party". For what it's worth 75% of the time I vote Democratic, the majority of the rest of the time it is Republican.

I am neither a Republican nor a Libertarian. Happy?
 
2007-03-05 02:53:19 PM
Gecko Gingrich
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has significantly increased;

I...kind of...agree with that. It depends on how broadly you apply the term "significantly".


From 280 ppm to about 367 ppm in about 130 years. 30% or so.

the average aggregate global temperatures have increased in a manner corresponding to the increased
levels of CO2s in the atmosphere;

Nor that.


Why not? Are you disputing that the current increase deviates from the typical increases caused by cyclic changes as indicated by ice drilling records?
 
2007-03-05 02:54:48 PM
Gecko Gingrich: I am neither a Republican nor a Libertarian. Happy?

Nor, for the record, have I ever been.
 
2007-03-05 02:54:49 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Are you disputing that the current increase deviates from the typical increases caused by cyclic changes as indicated by ice drilling records?

Ice core records capture the concentration at the poles at the time of initial snow deposition.

Has the modern influx of CO2 been shown to exist uniformly worldwide?
 
2007-03-05 02:57:38 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Are you disputing that the current increase deviates from the typical increases caused by cyclic changes as indicated by ice drilling records?

Dude. You KNOW it was caused by solar flares and/or volcanoes. It is just coincidence that the massive increase in atmospheric CO2 coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
 
2007-03-05 02:58:29 PM
ThatDevGuy

Manfred Richthofen: I studied in physics lab that cost millions of dollars designed to conduct experiments on laser and quantum physical mechanics.

We'll expand my initial assertion to include physics.
calling for more experiment

They were calling for ANY experiment.


You know what? I'll tell my biology buddy that tonight, after he comes back from his lab where he's been separating DNA for the past 8 hours.

Then I'll tell my physics prof to give me my credits back for missing lab sessions, since we don't do it any more.

Then I'll call my buddy attending medical school to stop her work with the clinical experimental programs, since they are not suppose to do experiments any more.

Then I'll call my epideomology ph.D friend to call of his diabetes dissertation he's been toiling on for the past 6 years.
 
2007-03-05 03:01:02 PM
Manfred Richthofen: I'll tell my biology buddy that tonight, after he comes back from his lab where he's been separating DNA for the past 8 hours.

What's his control group? How is he ruling out confounding factors?

Then I'll call my epideomology ph.D friend to call of his diabetes dissertation he's been toiling on for the past 6 years.

That sounds like chemistry (of which medicine is a subset).

Then I'll call my buddy attending medical school to stop her work with the clinical experimental programs, since they are not suppose to do experiments any more.

That sounds like chemistry (of which medicine is a subset).

Then I'll tell my physics prof to give me my credits back for missing lab sessions, since we don't do it any more.

I believe I already admitted that we should include physics.
 
2007-03-05 03:01:42 PM
Manfred Richthofen: I'll tell my biology buddy that tonight, after he comes back from his lab where he's been separating DNA for the past 8 hours.

Also, that sounds like chemistry, of which... biochemistry is a subset.
 
2007-03-05 03:03:13 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Why not? Are you disputing that the current increase deviates from the typical increases caused by cyclic changes as indicated by ice drilling records?

Why don't I deny that? Because empirical evidence is hard to refute.

In other words, I don't deny that. As I said in earlier:

I am a "Global Warming" skeptic, inasmuch as its causes are concerned.

I don't deny that the Earth is getting warmer, nor that CO2 levels are increasing, nor that man puts CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't even deny that man has a role in global warming (I'm not saying they do, just that I haven't formed an opinion yet). *All* I am saying is that the evidence put forth so far that man has a significant role in global warming has left me unconvinced.

Try to keep up. :)
 
2007-03-05 03:03:33 PM
ThatDevGuy

Manfred Richthofen: Are you disputing that the current increase deviates from the typical increases caused by cyclic changes as indicated by ice drilling records?

Ice core records capture the concentration at the poles at the time of initial snow deposition.

Has the modern influx of CO2 been shown to exist uniformly worldwide?


That I don't know.

But there are more means than ice core drilling to study the past climatic history. Ocean carbon isotopes for one, I think.

Here's the thing. Scientists don't know yet precisely how big of a role human activities play in the current climatic changes (they just know it plays some role) and how the changes will precisely manifest. For example, it has been suggested that GW will actually increase the snow in the polar regions, which, if true, will mean that the worst case scenario--coastal flooding--will probably not happen.

Again, scientists will be the first to clearly tell you the limitations of the current knowledge. Just ask the right questions, instead of coming out with statements like "they don't do experiments any more." Because it's kind of hard to respond intelligently with an argument like that.
 
2007-03-05 03:05:57 PM
BTW, Manfred:

2007-03-05 02:44:41 PM Gecko Gingrich: Is $10000000 a large amount of money?
 
2007-03-05 03:06:11 PM
Gecko Gingrich

I don't deny that the Earth is getting warmer, nor that CO2 levels are increasing, nor that man puts CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't even deny that man has a role in global warming (I'm not saying they do, just that I haven't formed an opinion yet). *All* I am saying is that the evidence put forth so far that man has a significant role in global warming has left me unconvinced.

Try to keep up. :)


Sure, I'll be the first to admit that we don't currently know exactly how big of a role men plays, or what exactly will happen if the CO2 emission is not curved. So will all the scientists. EPA has a great summary on the current knowledge of the Global Warming issues, including the unknowns.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
 
2007-03-05 03:07:40 PM
ThatDevGuy

Manfred Richthofen: I'll tell my biology buddy that tonight, after he comes back from his lab where he's been separating DNA for the past 8 hours.

Also, that sounds like chemistry, of which... biochemistry is a subset.


Well . . . if you are covering physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics and other fields related to medicine and engineering (I assume), then what fields of sciences are you claiming don't do any experiments?
 
2007-03-05 03:08:38 PM
Gecko Gingrich

BTW, Manfred:

2007-03-05 02:44:41 PM Gecko Gingrich: Is $10000000 a large amount of money?


What's the context?

It's large enough money for me to definitely do anything legal.

It's not large enough for me to commit a murder.
 
2007-03-05 03:09:50 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Just ask the right questions, instead of coming out with statements like "they don't do experiments any more."

I would not consider an ice core analysis, for instance, to be an experiment. Certainly, it's research. The investigation consists of a large number of small analyses using predefined methodologies. It might even involve some statistics. However, the end result is a pile of data, not a comparison between a null hypothesis and one of several alternative hypotheses.

It has all the characteristics of an experiment (data collection, use of statistics, etc), except for actually ... being an experiment.

And, in that case, what really matters is not the empirical data (which as Gecko said is hard to refute) but the published interpretation of the data. With some datasets, multiple interpretations are impossible. However, some datasets (such as the behavior of light, or those involved in atmospheric science), an enormous variety of interpretations are possible. These are paradigms.

This problem is, of course, worse in the social sciences (psychology) and historical sciences (archaeology) than any natural sciences.
 
2007-03-05 03:11:53 PM
Gecko Gingrich: Is $10000000 a large amount of money?

That was my office budget one year. Allowed me to have a staff of six people, plus supplies, plus overhead.
 
2007-03-05 03:14:36 PM
Manfred Richthofen: What's the context?

In the context of $1 * 1023. "Large amount" and "large percentage" are often confused, sometimes intentionally. Similarly to how people will say, "Man puts a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere."
 
2007-03-05 03:15:25 PM
towatchoverme: That was my office budget one year. Allowed me to have a staff of six people, plus supplies, plus overhead.

Sheesh, what do you do for a living? That's a million dollar salary for each person plus three million left over for supplies and overhead!
 
2007-03-05 03:17:15 PM
ThatDevGuy

I would not consider an ice core analysis, for instance, to be an experiment. Certainly, it's research. The investigation consists of a large number of small analyses using predefined methodologies. It might even involve some statistics. However, the end result is a pile of data, not a comparison between a null hypothesis and one of several alternative hypotheses.

Oh, certainly. But . . . I'm not seeing issues with it, since experiments are just one way of collecting data. If the data is valid, then I would assume valid conclusions can be drawn.

And, in that case, what really matters is not the empirical data (which as Gecko said is hard to refute) but the published interpretation of the data. With some datasets, multiple interpretations are impossible. However, some datasets (such as the behavior of light, or those involved in atmospheric science), an enormous variety of interpretations are possible. These are paradigms.

Certainly. That's what makes science unknown.

But with enough data, I think enough theories can be eliminated to narrow down the field and reach something like a scientific consensus. It's my understanding that GW is close to, if not already, reaching this point, at least on certain key points.

As I said, there is no consensus on how big of a role men plays in climate changes and how bad the warming will eventually get, and people are right to have discussions over those points.

But there seems to be little doubt in the scientific community that men are to some degree responsible for the climate changes we are witnessing.

This problem is, of course, worse in the social sciences (psychology) and historical sciences (archaeology) than any natural sciences.

Yes. They are also more mired in politics than natural sciences, usually.
 
2007-03-05 03:18:12 PM
bboy

Sheesh, what do you do for a living? That's a million dollar salary for each person plus three million left over for supplies and overhead!

Good thing i have an accountant.

I read that as $1 million. Heh. Whups.
 
2007-03-05 03:18:56 PM
Manfred Richthofen: If the data is valid, then I would assume valid conclusions can be drawn.

Depends on your premises.

As I said, there is no consensus on how big of a role men plays in climate changes and how bad the warming will eventually get, and people are right to have discussions over those points.

Very true. However, the scare tactics on the Al Gore side of things (as opposed to the Exxon-Mobil side of things) would tell you that men are responsible for destroying the environment, that hurricanes are going to rape and murder our wives, and that we're all doomed DOOOOMED I tell you!

So, it's no surprise that those are the arguments to which the "deniers" respond.
 
2007-03-05 03:20:22 PM
Gecko Gingrich

Manfred Richthofen: What's the context?

In the context of $1 * 1023. "Large amount" and "large percentage" are often confused, sometimes intentionally. Similarly to how people will say, "Man puts a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere."


Well, it's 30%. I don't propose we continue to pump more until everybody can agree all it is "large."

The Global Warming now as it stands is a cautionary tale. I don't think it is wise to turn it into a tragic story, which will eventually happen if we don't change our ways in one way or another.
 
2007-03-05 03:21:22 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Well, it's 30%.

Yeah but it's 30% of 0.038%.
 
2007-03-05 03:25:20 PM
ThatDevGuy

Very true. However, the scare tactics on the Al Gore side of things (as opposed to the Exxon-Mobil side of things) would tell you that men are responsible for destroying the environment, that hurricanes are going to rape and murder our wives, and that we're all doomed DOOOOMED I tell you!

Well, if the world only consisted of reasonable people, we should be able to agree to work on reducing pollutions and increasing our overall efficiency in any way possible.

But the world is full of people responding to scare tactics, from both sides of the aisle.

I think the best way to proceed is to allow scientists can be wrong (they are humans), but also allow that it is the best knowledge we currently have. Since we are not omniscient creatures, that is the best we can do, even if it may turn out wrong in the future.
 
2007-03-05 03:25:36 PM
ThatDevGuy: So, it's no surprise that those are the arguments to which the "deniers" respond.

That, and it's usually framed thusly:

*Man* causes global worming. That fact is 100% irrefutable. *Man* must do: X, Y, and Z or else we will all die. BTW, I have already done X, Y, and Z, so by "man" I mean "you". *You* cause global warming. *You* must drastically change *your* lifestyle *right now* or else *you* are an asshole and are responsible for the death of billions. I drive a Hybrid and buy carbon credits.
 
2007-03-05 03:27:29 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Well, it's 30%.

Actually, no. It may be 30% higher than "where it's supposed to be", but that doesn't make man 100% responsible for all of it. correlation != causation
 
2007-03-05 03:27:47 PM
ThatDevGuy

Manfred Richthofen: Well, it's 30%.

Yeah but it's 30% of 0.038%.


Yes, but small portions sometimes make big differences.

If 0.038% of your blood was arsonic, you'd be dead.

CO2 happens to be a very significant player in the atmosphere, despite its seemingly insignifcant amount, unlike, say, nitrogen.
 
2007-03-05 03:30:08 PM
Gecko Gingrich

Manfred Richthofen: Well, it's 30%.

Actually, no. It may be 30% higher than "where it's supposed to be", but that doesn't make man 100% responsible for all of it. correlation != causation


Actually, it's more than just correlation, because men do pump out CO2 in the atmosphere.

What else contributes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not volcano (very quiet over the past 150 years) nor forest fires (insignificant).
 
2007-03-05 03:30:56 PM
That, and it's usually framed thusly:

"usually"? Have any evidence to back that up? Or perhaps you've seen one or two outrages people speak like that and that has stuck with you, where the quieter, more rational voices haven't?

/Drives a Hybrid
//Buys carbon credits
 
2007-03-05 03:32:52 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Well, if the world only consisted of reasonable people, we should be able to agree to work on reducing pollutions and increasing our overall efficiency in any way possible.

If those pollutants have been shown to have no ill effect or that their effects are unknown in either manner or scope, then is it still reasonable to follow a single course of action, even if that course is either unnecessarily taxing or altogether ineffective?
 
2007-03-05 03:37:48 PM
Gecko Gingrich

Manfred Richthofen: Well, if the world only consisted of reasonable people, we should be able to agree to work on reducing pollutions and increasing our overall efficiency in any way possible.

If those pollutants have been shown to have no ill effect or that their effects are unknown in either manner or scope, then is it still reasonable to follow a single course of action, even if that course is either unnecessarily taxing or altogether ineffective?


I know of no single pollutant of the characteristcs that you used. Pollutants can be relatively harmless to most people in small enough qualities, but human bodies and ecosystems have equilibrium, over which point pollutions will have harmful effects.

And as any insurance company will tell you, it is better to pay some to prepare and avoid now, then to have potential catestrophy in the future.

If we continue to increase CO2 in the atmosphere, eventually it will have severe effect on the global climate system. It may not be Al-Gorific, but it will be expensive as hell, and possibly very harmful.
 
2007-03-05 03:38:29 PM
Manfred Richthofen: What else contributes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not volcano (very quiet over the past 150 years) nor forest fires (insignificant).

Flatus, plant respiration, and rot are three that come to mind.

many correlations != causation


Why do you ask what other contributors there are, but then discount two of them out of hand?


Quick, name a wholly German car company besides Volkswagen, but BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes-Benz don't count. You can't do it can you? That's because VW is the *only* wholly German car company.

See the problem?
 
2007-03-05 03:39:33 PM
Manfred Richthofen: If we continue to increase CO2 in the atmosphere, eventually it will have severe effect on the global climate system. It may not be Al-Gorific, but it will be expensive as hell, and possibly very harmful.

*Man* causes global worming. That fact is 100% irrefutable. *Man* must do: X, Y, and Z or else we will all die. BTW, I have already done X, Y, and Z, so by "man" I mean "you". *You* cause global warming. *You* must drastically change *your* lifestyle *right now* or else *you* are an asshole and are responsible for the death of billions. I drive a Hybrid and buy carbon credits.
 
2007-03-05 03:47:17 PM
Gecko Gingrich

Manfred Richthofen: What else contributes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not volcano (very quiet over the past 150 years) nor forest fires (insignificant).

Flatus, plant respiration, and rot are three that come to mind.


Flatus produces methane, mostly, not CO2. Same with decomposition. Since plants generally consume more CO2 from atmosphere than they exhale, I think it is unlikely that plants will contribute to atmospheric CO2 increase.

many correlations != causation

correlation != causation works if it is not obvious there is an input-output relationship between a factor and an outcome. Works less well when the input is man pumping CO2 into the air and the output is CO2 in the air increasing. There might be additional contributions, but causation seems clearly established.

Why do you ask what other contributors there are, but then discount two of them out of hand?

Because, as I explained it immediately after listing them, volcano output in the last 150 years and the CO2 generated by forest fires have been measured and shown to be relatively small compared to men-generated CO2s. Volcano activity generated roughly 1/150th of CO2 that was generated by men in the past 200 years or so.

*Man* causes global worming. That fact is 100% irrefutable. *Man* must do: X, Y, and Z or else we will all die. BTW, I have already done X, Y, and Z, so by "man" I mean "you". *You* cause global warming. *You* must drastically change *your* lifestyle *right now* or else *you* are an asshole and are responsible for the death of billions. I drive a Hybrid and buy carbon credits.

I don't think that was my tone of voice. It is unfortunate if you perceived it as such.
 
2007-03-05 03:57:14 PM
Manfred Richthofen: I don't think that was my tone of voice. It is unfortunate if you perceived it as such.

He appears to be stuck in the "Al Gore is a limousine liberal and he wants you to sacrifice... unless you can buy your way out!" school of climate change skepticism.
 
2007-03-05 03:57:49 PM
Green!?
 
2007-03-05 04:01:50 PM
Manfred Richthofen: Flatus produces methane, mostly, not CO2.

I will admit that I got my methane in your carbon dioxide there. My bad.

Same with decomposition.

http://chainreaction.asu.edu/ecology/digin/carbondioxide.htm
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/kyotonow/greenhousegas.html

Since plants generally consume more CO2 from atmosphere than they exhale, I think it is unlikely that plants will contribute to atmospheric CO2 increase.

Once again, why do you insist on discounting a contributor simply because it messes with your agenda?

Also, I forgot animal respiration on my list. Please explain to the class how we don't exhale CO2.
 
2007-03-05 04:01:53 PM
Not another GW thread!
 
2007-03-05 04:04:13 PM
Gecko Gingrich

Once again, why do you insist on discounting a contributor simply because it messes with your agenda?

What's my agenda?

I never discounted a contributor. Methane is also a large greenhousing agent. But I thought this thread was about CO2. Has anyone mentioned methane before these few posts?

Also, I forgot animal respiration on my list. Please explain to the class how we don't exhale CO2.

We do.

?
 
2007-03-05 04:07:53 PM
bboy: He appears to be stuck in the "Al Gore is a limousine liberal and he wants you to sacrifice... unless you can buy your way out!" school of climate change skepticism.

It would appear quite a few folks are "stuck" in a certain mindset.
 
2007-03-05 04:09:13 PM
Let's take a moment to read up on the carbon cycle before we start listing respiration and such as major contributors to global climate change.
 
2007-03-05 04:09:41 PM
Gecko Gingrich

bboy: He appears to be stuck in the "Al Gore is a limousine liberal and he wants you to sacrifice... unless you can buy your way out!" school of climate change skepticism.

It would appear quite a few folks are "stuck" in a certain mindset.


But not you, obviously.
 
2007-03-05 04:11:14 PM
Manfred Richthofen: I never discounted a contributor.

You: Not volcano (very quiet over the past 150 years) nor forest fires (insignificant).

You: Same with decomposition.

You: Since plants generally consume more CO2 from atmosphere than they exhale, I think it is unlikely that plants will contribute to atmospheric CO2 increase.

You: Methane is also a large greenhousing agent. But I thought this thread was about CO2. Has anyone mentioned methane before these few posts?


I openly admitted my error.

You: ?

You seem to have a spurious retort for every other alternate source I mentioned, I figured you had one for that as well.
 
2007-03-05 04:11:20 PM
Gecko Gingrich: It would appear quite a few folks are "stuck" in a certain mindset.

Sure. But one side is stuck on peer-reviewed scientific research that concludes that anthropogenic climate change exists, and the other side is stuck on "proving" that Al Gore is a schmuck, or some other non-scientific political conclusion.
 
2007-03-05 04:12:05 PM
Manfred Richthofen: But not you, obviously.

Please show me where I've said that.
 
2007-03-05 04:13:38 PM
bboy: , and the other side is stuck on "proving" that Al Gore is a schmuck, or some other non-scientific political conclusion.

Or that, for that matter.
 
2007-03-05 04:17:44 PM
Well, now that this is green, I have to go home, and bboy, with his "I can shout louder than you, so I win" debate style have re-entered the thread, I'm done. Please feel free to continue to throw your barbs, I won't see them anyway.
 
2007-03-05 04:18:09 PM
Gecko Gingrich: *Man* causes global worming. That fact is 100% irrefutable. *Man* must do: X, Y, and Z or else we will all die. BTW, I have already done X, Y, and Z, so by "man" I mean "you". *You* cause global warming. *You* must drastically change *your* lifestyle *right now* or else *you* are an asshole and are responsible for the death of billions. I drive a Hybrid and buy carbon credits.

You can try to tell me that you weren't saying "Al Gore is a hypocrite!!", but I'll know you're lying.
 
2007-03-05 04:18:18 PM
But he's a SCIENTIST! You can't doubt The Scientist! And The Scientists says global warming isn't a man made effect!

Why do you all hate The Science?
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report