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.

(Fox News)   In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species' history   (foxnews.com) divider line 802
    More: Obvious, global warming, American Physical Society, Kevin Trenberth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Climategate, Extraordinary Popular Delusions, species, Alarmism  
•       •       •

10808 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



802 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-19 03:49:57 AM  

Teufelaffe: SevenizGud: Teufelaffe: SquiggelyGrounders: Yeah except that the global temperatures have stagnated over the last decade.

That's not only bullshiat, it's not even convincing bullshiat.

9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 2000. (new window)

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

I'm sure every climatologist in the world will be relieved to know that most often-cited temperature set in the world is bullshiat.

Hey, look, I can post graphs with no key or context from a website too!
[woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

But, let's take a look and see what NASA has to say about global temperatures, shall we?
Nine of the top ten warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. Last year was another one of them, coming in at 9th warmest since 1880. (new window)

Note the bottom graph in particular:
[blogs.discovermagazine.com image 610x585]

Now let's compare that graph with the same data range from WoofForTrees.org:

[woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Well, would you look at that...not only are they showing very similar results, the WoodForTrees.org data shows an even larger upward change! Why, it's almost as if you pulled bullshiat out of your ass, found a graph with a downward trend, thought it proved your point, and posted that shiat post haste!


Nasa was really ahead of its game to have so many satellites in orbit in the 1890's that they could amass data that was accurate enough for them to draw conclusions after comparing it to satellite data from the 1990's and beyond...... But no we get it, the planets getting warmer and you want it to be someones fault so you can profit from it and take control of peoples lives.....nice plan.
 
2012-02-19 04:20:23 AM  

lokisbong: "spmkk: Out of curiosity, what specifically do you think I'm denying?

Well from you previous comments I gathered that you think that there is nothing we can do about what we have been talking about. Just a let it happen kind of mentality. I am not sure if you even believe all the science stuff though."



Let me ask you a question: You know that organic chicken is healthier than hot dogs - science overwhelmingly supports this. But when your kids need to have dinner and you have $3 to your name until you get paid next week, which one will you buy at the grocery store?

My (apparently heretical) point is that climate science, settled to consensus or not, isn't the only factor we have to consider. Economy is an important one - today's as well as tomorrow's. Realistic perspective is another. So is ROI.

In 2008, the world generated ~29.9 million metric tons of of carbon dioxide emissions, about 5.5 of which were produced by the US (source). Ten years earlier, that total number was 24.3. Let's stipulate that the world's average temperature is rising and that lowering CO2 emissions to earlier levels is the solution. Notice that the US could completely shut down and emit no CO2 whatsoever -- no cars, no conventional powerplants, no barbeques -- and the world would still emit more CO2 than it did, with our contribution, in 1998 (we won't even talk about pre-industrial-revolution levels).

Think about that for a second. Believing that we're going to solve this problem by domestic regulation and publicly-funded infrastructure overhauls is both arrogant and insane. More practically, it's self-destructive. The fact that, according to Skeptical Science, 57% of economists think that's the approach we should take is farking scary.

Does this mean we should do nothing? Obviously, no. Does it mean we shouldn't update our infrastructure at all? Of course not. And we have been. But our conviction that, "The earth is warming" means, "We must enact laws that stifle growth and commit to expenditures that make us less competitive" is irrational. If I'm denying anything it's the validity of this logic, which inexplicably seems to govern how we interpret the "science stuff".
 
2012-02-19 04:37:06 AM  

spmkk: lokisbong: "spmkk: Out of curiosity, what specifically do you think I'm denying?

Well from you previous comments I gathered that you think that there is nothing we can do about what we have been talking about. Just a let it happen kind of mentality. I am not sure if you even believe all the science stuff though."


Let me ask you a question: You know that organic chicken is healthier than hot dogs - science overwhelmingly supports this. But when your kids need to have dinner and you have $3 to your name until you get paid next week, which one will you buy at the grocery store?

My (apparently heretical) point is that climate science, settled to consensus or not, isn't the only factor we have to consider. Economy is an important one - today's as well as tomorrow's. Realistic perspective is another. So is ROI.

In 2008, the world generated ~29.9 million metric tons of of carbon dioxide emissions, about 5.5 of which were produced by the US (source). Ten years earlier, that total number was 24.3. Let's stipulate that the world's average temperature is rising and that lowering CO2 emissions to earlier levels is the solution. Notice that the US could completely shut down and emit no CO2 whatsoever -- no cars, no conventional powerplants, no barbeques -- and the world would still emit more CO2 than it did, with our contribution, in 1998 (we won't even talk about pre-industrial-revolution levels).

Think about that for a second. Believing that we're going to solve this problem by domestic regulation and publicly-funded infrastructure overhauls is both arrogant and insane. More practically, it's self-destructive. The fact that, according to Skeptical Science, 57% of economists think that's the approach we should take is farking scary.

Does this mean we should do nothing? Obviously, no. Does it mean we shouldn't update our infrastructure at all? Of course not. And we have been. But our conviction that, "The earth is warming" means, "We must enact laws that stifle growth and ...


Well first I have no children but if I did I would give up something to a pawn shop to feed them better than hotdogs.
Second if we have done so much to fix the problem already where is this economic disaster you were so worried about.
Third most countries are also doing their part to reduce co2 emissions. not just America and some of those countries are even coming up with new ways other than just shutting down everything like you seem to think needs to happen and It hasn't bankrupted any of them yet.
Fourth nobody I have read says we need to shut down all co2 emitters completely. That's a bit over the top in every scenario I have seen. Your all or nothing approach is unrealistic as is the just letting it all happen because there is nothing we can do attitudes.

I will come back tomorrow and see if you still want to discus this but it is very late and I want to crash now.
 
2012-02-19 05:17:56 AM  

muck4doo: LOL! I love all the angry frothing at the mouth responses.

"The world is doomed unless we act now, and the deniers are stopping it!!! Damn muck4brains! Listen to me!"

lulz. I guess everyone needs their doomsday scenarios about the people who won't listen to their wisdom.

Wake up sheeples!


Aww someone is mad.
 
2012-02-19 09:54:52 AM  

muck4doo: LOL! I love all the angry frothing at the mouth responses.

"The world is doomed unless we act now, and the deniers are stopping it!!! Damn muck4brains! Listen to me!"

lulz. I guess everyone needs their doomsday scenarios about the people who won't listen to their wisdom.

Wake up sheeples!


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-02-19 10:04:17 AM  

archichris: But no we get it, the planets getting warmer and you want it to be someones fault so you can profit from it and take control of peoples lives.....nice plan.


Yes, that's exactly right. I don't want to start working to reverse the damage we've done to our environment so that we have a safer, cleaner place to live. Not at all, it's all just a way to grab power and profit. Yeah, that's it. Just like the whole asbestos ban wasn't really about public safety, it was a power play by the insidious insulation cartel who felt threatened. And requiring seat belts in cars wasn't to keep people safe, it was to give the government more power and to give more money to the Nylon lobby. Don't even get me started on the ban against using lead in pipes...that was obviously someone's attempt to destroy the lead industry.

You are a very special kind of stupid, you know that?
 
2012-02-19 12:03:02 PM  

spmkk: But our conviction that, "The earth is warming" means, "We must enact laws that stifle growth and commit to expenditures that make us less competitive" is irrational.


Whose conviction is that exactly? Has anyone actually proposed laws that actually do that?

/you sound pretty irrational about it
 
2012-02-19 12:30:38 PM  

spmkk: My (apparently heretical) point is that climate science, settled to consensus or not, isn't the only factor we have to consider. Economy is an important one - today's as well as tomorrow's. Realistic perspective is another. So is ROI.


Your reason for skepticism is already moot point. You honestly believe that there haven't been economists getting involved in the scenarios and plans put forward? While I'm definitely more on the environment end of science, economists have been working closely with these conservation issues for years. I have more on this, but I'll direct you to the economics of ecosystem services which has been in study for at least a decade now.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000897
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000885
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v650886451133452/
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online& a id=8419850


In 2008, the world generated ~29.9 million metric tons of of carbon dioxide emissions, about 5.5 of which were produced by the US (source). Ten years earlier, that total number was 24.3. Let's stipulate that the world's average temperature is rising and that lowering CO2 emissions to earlier levels is the solution. Notice that the US could completely shut down and emit no CO2 whatsoever -- no cars, no conventional powerplants, no barbeques -- and the world would still emit more CO2 than it did, with our contribution, in 1998 (we won't even talk about pre-industrial-revolution levels).

Really? You sourced Wikipedia and someone's blog? Even taken at face value, you're conveniently ignoring that many of the other countries you've listed have committed to reducing their emissions. Not to mention, that as has been pointed out to you before, the objective is to slow down the rate. We aren't going to be able to flatline it. Absolutely no one is suggesting this, so why do you continually make up these strawman arguments?

Think about that for a second. Believing that we're going to solve this problem by domestic regulation and publicly-funded infrastructure overhauls is both arrogant and insane. More practically, it's self-destructive. The fact that, according to Skeptical Science, 57% of economists think that's the approach we should take is farking scary.

The link you provide does not say that at all. In fact, the graph you link to says that 57% of "somebody" says that we should enact climate-change policies regardless of the rest of the world is doing. I don't see any evidence that 57% of economists thing what you claim they think. Your point about the 'arrogance and insanity' of regulation and publicly-funded infrastructure overhauls I'll address in a moment. To a point, you're just simply wrong and haven't done your research. Do you purposefully ignore research and facts in favor of your opinion?

Does this mean we should do nothing? Obviously, no. Does it mean we shouldn't update our infrastructure at all? Of course not. And we have been. But our conviction that, "The earth is warming" means, "We must enact laws that stifle growth and commit to expenditures that make us less competitive" is irrational. If I'm denying anything it's the validity of this logic, which inexplicably seems to govern how we interpret the "science stuff".

Your logic is invalid because yours is based entirely off conjecture that no one is thinking about the economics of the situation. Economists have been examining the problem. They have and moreover their suggestions do not stifle growth and commit to expenditures that make as less competitive. I'll direct you to peer-reviewed literature:

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.91.1.1
http://www.jstor.org/pss/29729990
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2696499
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=7299&ttype=2

Their conclusions are that the potential economic costs of a climate change far outweigh the costs of policy making. Economists are saying it should be done, have acknowledged that the risks of doing nothing outweigh the cost of doing something. Moreover, they make recommendations in how it can be done without imploding the economy in the ways you are so hand-wringedly upset over.

Your true colors show in the fact that you have on several occasions during this discussion insinuated that you doubted that there would be any effects of climate change. You fly in the face of science and continue to argue on the basis of loosely stitched ideas and opinions that have no basis in reality.

In ahort, your argument is entirely irrational.
 
2012-02-19 12:41:15 PM  
They ate all the coo-coo birds, and now there are none to eat.
They put refuse in the water system by fracking and now the water catches on fire, no water to drink.
They are putting crap in the air, and you can even see it... and soon there will be nothing to breath.

Extinction.
 
2012-02-19 02:16:03 PM  

maxheck: DrPainMD:

lokisbong: Damnhippyfreak: Sure it may 'sound' right to you, but how it 'sounds' pales in comparison to the actual scientific knowledge that contradicts much of what this fellow is saying. I think more credence should be given to actual evidence rather than how it 'sounds'. How about you?

The scientific evidence has been posted all over this discussion. The deniers Don't want scientific evidence.They listen to how how Faux News makes it sound though.

What's been posted all over this thread is evidence that the climate has been warming. Nobody's denying that. What hasn't been posted is proof that man has caused it or that warming is bad for the environment.

Depends on what you consider bad.

If you happen to have large belts of grain-producing land that you're dependent on to feed 7 billion people, then it's bad.

If you have a problem with people moving north from the tropics because they've become desert... Then it's bad.

If you like seafood, and the gigatons of CO2 get absorbed into the ocean and dissolve the reefs, then it's bad.

If you depend on glaicial water like most of the world's population, then it's bad.

Other than that, I see no problem.


Do you have any proof that this will happen? Even just a tiny bit of proof.

Answer: no.

The indisputable FACT is that the periods of the Earth's history that were the warmest and had the highest CO2 levels were the periods that saw the greatest biomass in the Earth's history. Ask 100 climatologists if this is true and every single one of them will say, "yes."
 
2012-02-19 02:29:50 PM  

DrPainMD: Do you have any proof that this will happen? Even just a tiny bit of proof.


To be fair, neither of you do, neither of you are climatologists.

But carry on fighting the good fight, perhaps today will be the day the pubic global warming debate is concluded, here on Fark.com.

Meanwhile, the scientific debate has been concluded long ago.
 
2012-02-19 02:35:30 PM  

DrPainMD: Do you have any proof that this will happen? Even just a tiny bit of proof.

Answer: no.

The indisputable FACT is that the periods of the Earth's history that were the warmest and had the highest CO2 levels were the periods that saw the greatest biomass in the Earth's history. Ask 100 climatologists if this is true and every single one of them will say, "yes."


I do, and if you go look for it in this thread I posted it. If you continue to remain willfully ignorant of it, that's your choice, I guess and speaks volumes to your character. Incidentally, it's not just the level, but the rate of change that is of concern, nor have we seen levels this high since 15 million years ago (new window). For a moment, think about all the things that might have been different then than they are today. Also, I'll need a citation about biomass being highest in earth's history during the middle meiocene. I'm not finding any citations.
 
2012-02-19 02:38:45 PM  

DrPainMD: The indisputable FACT is that the periods of the Earth's history that were the warmest and had the highest CO2 levels were the periods that saw the greatest biomass in the Earth's history. Ask 100 climatologists if this is true and every single one of them will say, "yes."


Ask 100 climatologists if any of those periods saw human beings as part of the "greatest biomass in Earth's history" and every single one of them will say, "no."

Isn't it kinda weird how the AGW contrarians will call the pro-science crowd granola-munching Gaia-worshippers while simultaneously touting the how good AGW will be for the Earth without ever once explaining where we fit into that scenario? Seems a little odd that the pro-science argument can be boiled down to "we want to make sure humanity's habitat remains as undisturbed as possible", while the contrarian argument boils down to "MOTHER EARTH WILL REAP THE BENEFIT OF A RESURGENCE OF DINOSAURS!"

It's not whether or not AGW is bad, farkass. In terms of the environment, there is no good or bad. It doesn't give a fark; if it can support life, it probably will. The problem is, will it support ours. 'Cause see, I like our species, despite idiots like you. Natural, in-grained self-preservation and proliferation instincts and all that.
 
2012-02-19 02:39:08 PM  

DrPainMD:
The indisputable FACT is that the periods of the Earth's history that were the warmest and had the highest CO2 levels were the periods that saw the greatest biomass in the Earth's history. Ask 100 climatologists if this is true and every single one of them will say, "yes."


You're totally right. But that's not the world we live in. We have built all of our infrastructure in places that make the most sense for the world we currently live in, with the assumption that it will always be that way. Moving everything to keep up with or ahead of the water is not an easy or cheap thing. Life was (relatively) fine with previous climatic changes because it doesn't have infrastructure, and was able to freely track shifting habitats. It's much harder/impossible for populations to do this now that there are cities, farmlands, highways, and houses blocking movement and fragmenting habitat.

So yes, warm periods in the past were great for life, when taking a broad view of geologic time. The things that evolved in cold periods, however, (like humans and the grasses that we primarily depend on for food) do not necessarily do well in warm periods, or even make it through the transitions. Remember, while it's much warmer now than it was during the last glacial period, both the glacial and interglacial periods are still ice ages in the big picture. The shift from an icehouse to a greenhouse planet is a bigger change than between glacial and interglacial. Pretending that this shift wouldn't be any problem just because there was more biomass during warm periods in the past is incredibly, absurdly simplistic and misleading.
 
2012-02-19 02:43:20 PM  

gulogulo: DrPainMD: Do you have any proof that this will happen? Even just a tiny bit of proof.

Answer: no.

The indisputable FACT is that the periods of the Earth's history that were the warmest and had the highest CO2 levels were the periods that saw the greatest biomass in the Earth's history. Ask 100 climatologists if this is true and every single one of them will say, "yes."

I do, and if you go look for it in this thread I posted it. If you continue to remain willfully ignorant of it, that's your choice, I guess and speaks volumes to your character. Incidentally, it's not just the level, but the rate of change that is of concern, nor have we seen levels this high since 15 million years ago (new window). For a moment, think about all the things that might have been different then than they are today. Also, I'll need a citation about biomass being highest in earth's history during the middle meiocene. I'm not finding any citations.


My best guess is he is talking about the Cambrian era but I thought the main thing was oxygen not co2. But yeah I did some searching on line and found not a single thing about his claim either. By the way nice rebuttal to spmkk earlier. You said every thing I would have only much clearer and with citations even.
 
2012-02-19 02:50:49 PM  

lokisbong: My best guess is he is talking about the Cambrian era but I thought the main thing was oxygen not co2. But yeah I did some searching on line and found not a single thing about his claim either. By the way nice rebuttal to spmkk earlier. You said every thing I would have only much clearer and with citations even.


That was my suspicion too. Even if it is true that plant biomass was higher, which I could see having some potential, it doesn't necessarily mean that will be a benefit we will appreciate. 15 million years ago things were a lot different, sea levels significantly higher, etc. As someone said above, you can't draw those comparisons and pretend like 'it's all good' for mankind. The Earth will eventually shrug us off and the environment will do what it always has done, change and evolve. But how idiotic is it to willfully hasten us to that conclusion.

Thanks, a part of me hopes that I'm correcting some of the issue I see in science where we just aren't sharing our findings broadly enough. That if you give someone facts enough times that rational minds may prevail. But as someone told me upthread, I may be likely wasting my time.
 
2012-02-19 03:06:06 PM  

gulogulo: I may be likely wasting my time.


Yeah I'm starting to think I like bangin my head against some mad buggers wall.
 
2012-02-19 04:33:07 PM  

SevenizGud: Dr. Mojo PhD: SevenizGud: The people generating the HADCRUT data will be relieved to learn that their last decade of data is a lie.

Your rage at being called out on a lie is hilarious.

Yeah, nothing says "lie" quite like a graph of the last decade's worth of data from HADCRUT with the trendline right on it.


Shut up, Brockway, you cock!
 
2012-02-19 05:11:21 PM  

gulogulo:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000897
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800902000885
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v650886451133452/
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online& a id=8419850
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.91.1.1
http://www.jstor.org/pss/29729990
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2696499
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=7299&ttype=2


I wish I had access to your links (seriously); all but one of them come up as abstracts, which don't give much to go on. The one that I can access - the MIT Press Journal article - basically seems to conclude, "There are way too many unknowns, man...we have no farking idea of the value of the catastrophe insurance we're proposing to invest in." Which doesn't substantiate either of our positions, but it gets points for honesty.


gulogulo: "you're conveniently ignoring that many of the other countries you've listed have committed to reducing their emissions."


Perhaps, but when the biggest player by far is trending hard the other way (and partly as a result of that, making money off of us hand over fist), the discussion is inane and, as you put it, moot.


gulogulo: "the objective is to slow down the rate. We aren't going to be able to flatline it. Absolutely no one is suggesting this..."


...and I've been asking you to provide evidence that doing that (presuming that our efforts to do so will indeed accomplish it, which you've conceded is hypothetical) will actually counteract the predicted X-degree rise in temperature over Y years of letting energy technology develop at a natural pace. If you're so strongly convinced of this, would you please?


gulogulo: The link you provide does not say that at all. In fact, the graph you link to says that 57% of "somebody" says that we should enact climate-change policies regardless of the rest of the world is doing. I don't see any evidence that 57% of economists thing what you claim they think.


Dude...for real? That link came FROM YOU. Full caption: "Figure 5: New York University survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions". I just deep-linked to the image for simplicity.


As far as what economists are suggesting we do: What we're actually doing is randomly throwing money around at clean energy projects of highly questionable value, and losing it when our lack of think-through manifests. We're giving $billions to companies developing electric cars because our conscience is more clear when the soot comes from a smokestack we can't see and not from our tailpipes. We're pricing cars out of range of poorer drivers through fuel economy standards that challenge the laws of physics...which we'll presumably try to compensate for through subsidies. We're investing tons of money in initiatives that sound GREAT politically, such as requiring 10% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by this year...which, by God, we've done! -- except that was already happening before we started. The really big problem with that is, it sets the expectation that if we could afford this 10%, we'll be able to afford the next 10%, too...and the next -- when in reality the cost will be orders of magnitude higher.

We're not doing what makes sense. We don't know what makes sense. Some economists think they know what makes sense, but we're not doing that either - at least not with any measure of sanity. Climate scientists have some ambitious suggestions, but for the most part their understanding of economic forces doesn't extend beyond next year's research grant. The green energy industry certainly has an opinion on what makes sense, and we're doing that. Politicians know what makes sense for re-election, and we're doing that too. You're right - it may not be literally grenading the economy (yet), but it isn't cheap. And it DOES put us at a competitive disadvantage to other countries that are prioritizing their time and money more pragmatically. And incidentally, creating jobs in one industry at the expense of those in another isn't job creation. (I've been to the ghost towns of the 1980s oil bust - those abandoned buildings whisper a lot of sad and agonizing life stories.)


gulogulo: you have on several occasions during this discussion insinuated that you doubted that there would be any effects of climate change.


*blink*
 
2012-02-19 05:29:06 PM  

spmkk: gulogulo: you have on several occasions during this discussion insinuated that you doubted that there would be any effects of climate change.

*blink*


Not sure what your problem with that statement is. I got the same feeling from reading your comments at first. Only later did you start to sound like you might believe it but also believe it's economically unsound and maybe unfeasible to do anything. You seem just from reading your comments to worry more about the political possibilities than fixing the problem.
 
2012-02-19 05:32:41 PM  

spmkk: Dude...for real? That link came FROM YOU. Full caption: "Figure 5: New York University survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions". I just deep-linked to the image for simplicity.


Derp. My link was a link to google scholar search, not to any direct article. It still rejects what you said and does not support your assertion that 57% of economists think doing anything about climate change is a bad idea.

And, you absolutely fail at reading comprehension. The abstracts give you their conclusions AND the MIT one concluded in no uncertain terms that even with the uncertainty of the future, it is more costly not to act than it is to act.


...and I've been asking you to provide evidence that doing that (presuming that our efforts to do so will indeed accomplish it, which you've conceded is hypothetical) will actually counteract the predicted X-degree rise in temperature over Y years of letting energy technology develop at a natural pace.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/h296554706t2374p/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/701751t54248643j/

There you go. That took me about 2 minutes to find, so I'm sure there's more out there. Both of those indicate that there are scenarios present where reducing emissions even without the participation of developing countries is a worthwhile endeavor to prevent the temperature change, and delaying action is more costly.


And you keep on moving the goalposts now. You asked why no one is taking the economics into account, and I showed you they have. Now you say "well why aren't we doing it then," and to that I say "because of people like you." So I'm done trying to hammer some sense into your thick skull. You're determined to stick to your narrative no matter what facts are presented to you.
 
2012-02-19 07:13:00 PM  

Teufelaffe: archichris: But no we get it, the planets getting warmer and you want it to be someones fault so you can profit from it and take control of peoples lives.....nice plan.

Yes, that's exactly right. I don't want to start working to reverse the damage we've done to our environment so that we have a safer, cleaner place to live. Not at all, it's all just a way to grab power and profit. Yeah, that's it. Just like the whole asbestos ban wasn't really about public safety, it was a power play by the insidious insulation cartel who felt threatened. And requiring seat belts in cars wasn't to keep people safe, it was to give the government more power and to give more money to the Nylon lobby. Don't even get me started on the ban against using lead in pipes...that was obviously someone's attempt to destroy the lead industry.

You are a very special kind of stupid, you know that?


Sadly enough this is what the anti-climate change people are led to believe by the corporations and the politicians they are paying so that they can pollute as much as they want.
 
2012-02-19 07:42:57 PM  

gulogulo: "spmkk: Dude...for real? That link came FROM YOU. Full caption: "Figure 5: New York University survey results of economists with climate expertise when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions". I just deep-linked to the image for simplicity.

Derp. My link was a link to google scholar search, not to any direct article."


i738.photobucket.com


gulogulo: "It still rejects what you said and does not support your assertion that 57% of economists think doing anything about climate change is a bad idea."


What? That wasn't my assertion! I noted -- if anything, this is in your favor -- that 57% of economists (at least, 57% of economists approached by NYU for the survey that Skeptical Science references) think that acting unilaterally without anyone else's participation is a good idea.

spmkk: "Believing that we're going to solve this problem by domestic regulation and publicly-funded infrastructure overhauls is both arrogant and insane. More practically, it's self-destructive. The fact that, according to Skeptical Science, 57% of economists think that's the approach we should take is farking scary."


And I fail at reading comprehension?


gulogulo:
"http://www.springerlink.com/content/h296554706t2374p/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/701751t54248643j/

There you go. That took me about 2 minutes to find, so I'm sure there's more out there. Both of those indicate that there are scenarios present where reducing emissions even without the participation of developing countries is a worthwhile endeavor to prevent the temperature change, and delaying action is more costly."


Thank you! Now we're getting somewhere. The second link does no such thing, btw ("The RCP2.6 scenario is shown to be technically feasible...assuming full participation of all countries"; "such emission reductions cannot be achieved without broadening participation beyond OECD countries in the short run"; "The calculations, however, also show that several key conditions need to be met, such as broad participation of countries and sectors in the reductions"). Though it does present some evidence of the kind I asked you for - thanks.

As for your first link: So, earlier on you chastised me with, "the objective is to slow down the rate. We aren't going to be able to flatline it. Absolutely no one is suggesting this, so why do you continually make up these strawman arguments?" Now, from your own source:

www.springerlink.com

The stipulation here is that the developed world not only flatline our emissions, but immediately decrease them -- to essentially zero in the next 38 years. (As an aside, classifying China as "developing" is beyond disingenuous, but that's a different conversation.)

Your friend lokisbong ridiculed my "all or nothing approach" and said, "nobody I have read says we need to shut down all co2 emitters completely. That's a bit over the top in every scenario I have seen." And yet that's just about what this paper is proposing; perhaps not next week, but in less than four decades.

To put that in perspective, imagine having rebuilt our entire power supply infrastructure, done away with things like gas heating, re-populated our roads with a completely different kind of car and truck...all of that, in the time since 1974. Oh yeah, and at the same time imagine that in 1974 our economy and debt were in the same shape as they're in right now. Do you honestly think that would have been a realistic proposition, regardless of what we thought the worst-case alternative might be? Do you think it's a realistic proposition today?
 
2012-02-19 08:20:19 PM  

spmkk: As for your first link: So, earlier on you chastised me with, "the objective is to slow down the rate. We aren't going to be able to flatline it. Absolutely no one is suggesting this, so why do you continually make up these strawman arguments?" Now, from your own source:

It also says "Here we show that significantly delayed action by rapidly developing countries is not a reason to forgo mitigation efforts in developed economies."And "This letter demonstrates that even when developing economies delay any mitigation efforts until 2050 the effect of action by developed economies will appreciably reduce the probability of more extreme levels of temperature change. This paper concludes that early carbon mitigation efforts by developed economies will considerably affect the distribution over future climate change, whether or not developing countries begin mitigation efforts in the near term. " So what say you
 
2012-02-19 08:35:18 PM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:

I've noticed General Jim tends not to show up in AGW threads in which you're present.
 
2012-02-19 08:51:56 PM  

lokisbong: It also says "Here we show that significantly delayed action by rapidly developing countries is not a reason to forgo mitigation efforts in developed economies."And "This letter demonstrates that even when developing economies delay any mitigation efforts until 2050 the effect of action by developed economies will appreciably reduce the probability of more extreme levels of temperature change. This paper concludes that early carbon mitigation efforts by developed economies will considerably affect the distribution over future climate change, whether or not developing countries begin mitigation efforts in the near term. " So what say you



He shared two articles, and claimed they both "indicate that there are scenarios present where reducing emissions even without the participation of developing countries is a worthwhile endeavor to prevent the temperature change". I noted that the second article does not, and in fact arguably indicates the opposite. You're (correctly) pointing out that the first one does. There's no discrepancy...I'm not really sure what you want me to respond to.
 
2012-02-19 09:20:59 PM  

spmkk: I'm not really sure what you want me to respond to.

Is it worth Reducing emissions over the next 38 years or should we just stick our heads in the sand and hope nature works it all out for us?

I noted that the second article does not, and in fact arguably indicates the opposite.
Where does it indicate the opposite? I just read the whole pdf and didn't see such a claim anywhere.
 
2012-02-19 09:26:07 PM  

spmkk: lHe shared two articles, and claimed they both "indicate that there are scenarios present where reducing emissions even without the participation of developing countries is a worthwhile endeavor to prevent the temperature change". I noted that the second article does not, and in fact arguably indicates the opposite. You're (correctly) pointing out that the first one does. There's no discrepancy...I'm not really sure what you want me to respond to.


Hey, a bit off topic, but I'm a pretty serious proponent of trying to mitigate climate change, and I do what I can to try to correct misinformation about it. I've got to say that I rather appreciate your more pragmatic approach to dissent. I haven't been paying much attention to the entire thread, but it doesn't look like you're one of the people claiming "AGW is a fraud! They're just trying to take our money and control the planet!". I hope.

Anyways, if you do indeed accept that climate change is happening, and that people are causing it by rapidly releasing CO2 that would otherwise have been sequestered underground, what's your suggestion? I've seen lots of argument pointing out problems with the current approach, but not many suggestions as to better alternatives.

If you instead don't agree that global warming is even happening/a problem, then arguing implementation is pretty pointless.

/I hate the automatic hate that's directed at civil dissenters (on most threads in this tab)
 
2012-02-19 09:35:28 PM  

spmkk: We're giving $billions to companies developing electric cars because our conscience is more clear when the soot comes from a smokestack we can't see and not from our tailpipes.


Just to comment on this one point - it seems to me that it's much easier to control emissions from a much smaller number of smokestacks, and regulate them and check for compliance, than to do the same for millions of tailpipes. It also puts the source of the emissions at least some distance away from population centers.
 
2012-02-19 09:44:12 PM  

Erix: spmkk: lHe shared two articles, and claimed they both "indicate that there are scenarios present where reducing emissions even without the participation of developing countries is a worthwhile endeavor to prevent the temperature change". I noted that the second article does not, and in fact arguably indicates the opposite. You're (correctly) pointing out that the first one does. There's no discrepancy...I'm not really sure what you want me to respond to.

Hey, a bit off topic, but I'm a pretty serious proponent of trying to mitigate climate change, and I do what I can to try to correct misinformation about it. I've got to say that I rather appreciate your more pragmatic approach to dissent. I haven't been paying much attention to the entire thread, but it doesn't look like you're one of the people claiming "AGW is a fraud! They're just trying to take our money and control the planet!". I hope.

Anyways, if you do indeed accept that climate change is happening, and that people are causing it by rapidly releasing CO2 that would otherwise have been sequestered underground, what's your suggestion? I've seen lots of argument pointing out problems with the current approach, but not many suggestions as to better alternatives.

If you instead don't agree that global warming is even happening/a problem, then arguing implementation is pretty pointless.

/I hate the automatic hate that's directed at civil dissenters (on most threads in this tab)


The simple response to releasing excessive CO2 is not to release so much CO2. That's a problem when your entire civilization is based on a technology which by its nature releases large amounts of CO2. There are plenty of alternative energy sources, but it will cost money to develop them, and there are a lot of people with a strong financial interest in maintaining the status quo (dare I say a more powerful financial interest than those who think things should change?). Money, especially short-term profit, talks louder than science or long-term goals, at least in the US.

How do you discuss something that has a cumulative effect over a course of decades with a corporate mindset which prizes immediate shareholder gratification over all else, including the future of the corporation itself? It's as much an economic issue as it is a scientific issue, and having two fields of study involved doesn't double the derp factor in any discussion, it squares it at the very least.
 
2012-02-19 09:44:19 PM  
Oh, and just to throw out my own opinion on the matter, I think the main issue is that fossil fuels are unfortunately just too cheap. It's a shame that we've build our economy around them, but the price that's paid is not the true cost, it's simple the cost of extraction and processing. The cost of the waste products they produce is externalized, since it conveniently is invisible and just mixes in with the atmosphere. It's just now we're realizing that we're running up a massive debt, as we'll have to deal with the costs of dealing with the effects of CO2 at some point in the future. So, fossil fuels need to slowly, incrementally, raise in price, in order to encourage efficiency and innovation of alternatives. The best way to do this is probably for countries to start to impose import tariffs on products from other countries that don't take the true cost of fuels into account. This avoids ridiculous subsidies as well as putting too much power into an international body to impose and collect a carbon tax, allowing individual countries to do it as they see fit.

I'm sure there are major problems with this approach too, but it's better than most alternatives I've heard of. Especially doing nothing.
 
2012-02-19 09:47:46 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: The simple response to releasing excessive CO2 is not to release so much CO2. That's a problem when your entire civilization is based on a technology which by its nature releases large amounts of CO2. There are plenty of alternative energy sources, but it will cost money to develop them, and there are a lot of people with a strong financial interest in maintaining the status quo (dare I say a more powerful financial interest than those who think things should change?). Money, especially short-term profit, talks louder than science or long-term goals, at least in the US.

How do you discuss something that has a cumulative effect over a course of decades with a corporate mindset which prizes immediate shareholder gratification over all else, including the future of the corporation itself? It's as much an economic issue as it is a scientific issue, and having two fields of study involved doesn't double the derp factor in any discussion, it squares it at the very least.


I agree that's the simple response, but you just admitted it's essentially impossible. So how do you implement it? If countries/companies can just dump the waste from fossil fuels into the atmosphere and leave it to the future and the rest of the world to deal with it, how do you put an end to that, or make it economically unfeasible in a fair, enforceable way?
 
2012-02-19 09:57:42 PM  

Erix: Oh, and just to throw out my own opinion on the matter, I think the main issue is that fossil fuels are unfortunately just too cheap. It's a shame that we've build our economy around them, but the price that's paid is not the true cost, it's simple the cost of extraction and processing. The cost of the waste products they produce is externalized, since it conveniently is invisible and just mixes in with the atmosphere. It's just now we're realizing that we're running up a massive debt, as we'll have to deal with the costs of dealing with the effects of CO2 at some point in the future. So, fossil fuels need to slowly, incrementally, raise in price, in order to encourage efficiency and innovation of alternatives. The best way to do this is probably for countries to start to impose import tariffs on products from other countries that don't take the true cost of fuels into account. This avoids ridiculous subsidies as well as putting too much power into an international body to impose and collect a carbon tax, allowing individual countries to do it as they see fit.

I'm sure there are major problems with this approach too, but it's better than most alternatives I've heard of. Especially doing nothing.


Seems like a pretty good plan to me. Definitely better than the "it's to expensive to do anything" attitude. It might even get people to buy more locally made goods instead of crap from China who don't currently seem to care about pollution at all. Maybe if we put some major pressure in the way of not buying stuff from them we could convince them to change their policies too. And I am pretty sure if Chinese made stuff got more expensive because of tariffs most people would think a lot harder about buying their stuff.
 
2012-02-19 10:02:16 PM  

lokisbong:
Seems like a pretty good plan to me. Definitely better than the "it's to expensive to do anything" attitude. It might even get people to buy more locally made goods instead of crap from China who don't currently seem to care about pollution at all. Maybe if we put some major pressure in the way of not buying stuff from them we could convince them to change their policies too. And I am pretty sure if Chinese made stuff got more expensive because of tariffs most people would think a lot harder about buying their stuff.


One of the reasons I like it is because instead of just starting a trade war based on tariffs (hopefully), it's based on a specific quantifiable behavior of each individual country. Honestly, it seems a lot more "capitalistic" than the current system in which fuel prices are artificially kept low by ignoring the delayed tragedy of the commons they cause.

Of course, exactly how to value fuel is an issue, but to just slowly increase the price gives some time to figure that out.
 
2012-02-19 10:32:24 PM  

Erix: common sense is an oxymoron: The simple response to releasing excessive CO2 is not to release so much CO2. That's a problem when your entire civilization is based on a technology which by its nature releases large amounts of CO2. There are plenty of alternative energy sources, but it will cost money to develop them, and there are a lot of people with a strong financial interest in maintaining the status quo (dare I say a more powerful financial interest than those who think things should change?). Money, especially short-term profit, talks louder than science or long-term goals, at least in the US.

How do you discuss something that has a cumulative effect over a course of decades with a corporate mindset which prizes immediate shareholder gratification over all else, including the future of the corporation itself? It's as much an economic issue as it is a scientific issue, and having two fields of study involved doesn't double the derp factor in any discussion, it squares it at the very least.

I agree that's the simple response, but you just admitted it's essentially impossible. So how do you implement it? If countries/companies can just dump the waste from fossil fuels into the atmosphere and leave it to the future and the rest of the world to deal with it, how do you put an end to that, or make it economically unfeasible in a fair, enforceable way?


Given the present geopolitical conditions (given human nature itself when I'm feeling really cynical), I don't think it's possible to do both at once. For example, raising the cost of fossil fuels only works if everyone plays along and nobody tries to undersell. Unfortunately, if we don't do something, we do nothing, and I for one am convinced that that would be the most costly choice of all.

And no, this doesn't answer your question, except to suggest that it might be unanswerable.
 
2012-02-19 11:22:55 PM  

vygramul: Dr. Mojo PhD:

I've noticed General Jim tends not to show up in AGW threads in which you're present.


He's probably worn out from the last one. One of these days the mods ought to have an entire page of global warming threads just for GeneralJim's benefit. It'd be like taking a dog that's mad about chasing balls to a driving range.
 
2012-02-20 12:28:01 AM  

Repo Man: vygramul: Dr. Mojo PhD:

I've noticed General Jim tends not to show up in AGW threads in which you're present.

He's probably worn out from the last one. One of these days the mods ought to have an entire page of global warming threads just for GeneralJim's benefit. It'd be like taking a dog that's mad about chasing balls to a driving range.


He never shows up until the threads are pretty much dead, so he'd probably have a nervous breakdown waiting for everyone to move on.
 
2012-02-20 12:29:17 AM  

lokisbong: "Where does it indicate the opposite? I just read the whole pdf and didn't see such a claim anywhere."


You didn't make it to the parts that I boldfaced in my post to gulogulo up above?


Erix: "I've got to say that I rather appreciate your more pragmatic approach to dissent."


Thanks - I appreciate that.

Erix: what's your suggestion? I've seen lots of argument pointing out problems with the current approach, but not many suggestions as to better alternatives.


I don't have a specific bullet list of measures to implement, but at the high level my suggestion is, "Ready, Aim, Fire" - IN THAT ORDER. More in a sec...


lokisbong: "Is it worth Reducing emissions over the next 38 years or should we just stick our heads in the sand and hope nature works it all out for us?"


You're asking half of a question. Is it worth WHAT to reduce emissions over the next 38 years?

Here's the thing: If we can reduce emissions over the next 38 years in a way that is valid, achievable, effective, realistic, predictable, manageable, fair, technologically feasible, economically sound, less disruptive than adapting to a couple of degrees' change, doesn't threaten the country's solvency and takes all the necessary moving parts into account -- yes, of course it's worth it. But a "plan" that calls for us to re-invent consumable energy in 38 years is none of those things - and thus isn't a plan.

What I actually think is that we're not ready for a plan. We're not going about making a plan the right way - we're doing it piecemeal. We have people over here whose pet thing is electric cars. There's people over there who think a wind farm over Cape Cod will save the world. (That's the shiat that dominates our headlines, costs money, makes us feel like we're making a difference, but actually delivers nothing.) We've got the inevitable opportunists digging for gold with the "clean energy" lobby. And, of course, the politicians jumping over each other to write a bigger check for anything with the word "green" in it because they have to appease the hordes that shout, "DO SOMETHING!" without understanding that motion without progress is counterproductive.

Among the actual players, we have climate scientists who write a whole thesis about how all we have to do to solve the problem is drop our CO2 emissions by 80% (really - that's it!), and then punch their card and go home because their work is done. We have an oil industry that absolutely HAS to be brought into this conversation constructively, but is instead being backed into a corner and forced to fight an existential battle that (understandably) it's not willing to lose. We have a broke government that's trying to spend its way out of insolvency, and finally we have the so-called "developing" world that's causing most of this mess to begin with but can't be bothered to help.


The question is not, "Is it worth reducing emissions over the next 38 years?".
The question to ask -- BEFORE executing -- is, "How can we create an actionable plan that takes all foreseeable factors into account, maximizes impact, minimizes expense and risk, empowers contribution from all major players, protects against corruption, includes effective mechanisms to hold all parties accountable, and is politically viable?" -- and then do that FIRST.

This, and only this, will give us enough information to know if it's "worth it", because only then will we know what we're really asking. In the meantime, we have to be mature enough to resist the temptation to "do something" just for the sake of not doing nothing.

If your car breaks down, the first step isn't to go to the hardware store to buy tools. First you figure out what's broken (this we largely know), how you're going to fix it (we have some rough ideas here), and finally what tools you need (we have no clue). And only then you go tool-shopping, because otherwise it's even odds that you're just throwing your time and money away.
 
2012-02-20 12:40:07 AM  
FloydA:
cman: WhiskeyBender: It is a shame you guys still believe in such a silly concept as "global warming". The world was created in 6000 years and the climate has NEVER changed one bit. If any of this silly fable was true, it would be in the only TRUE science book..the Bible. I would go on how crazy you fellas are...but I forgot to put the parking brake on my wooly mamoth and is sliding down a snow cliff here in Florida...

Not everyone who disputes climate change is a bible thumping idiot..

That's true. Some of them are other kinds of idiot. For example, there are sister thumping idiots, goat thumping idiots, chicken thumping idiots... really, there are a whole plethora of different kinds of idiots who are afraid of science because the man on TV told them to be. They're not all Bible thumping idiots, they thump lots of different things.

I have you favorited as logical, except in politics. Considering that AGW is now a political, not scientific, issue, that makes sense.

So, what science do you base your support of the Church of Global Warming? I mean, Vaxxers can point to at least a perceived correlation between autism and vaccination rates, but the correlation factor between carbon dioxide level changes and global temperature changes is in the mid-to-high twenties, and it goes in the wrong direction. That is, temperature leads carbon dioxide level changes. May I point out how unlikely it is to have a trailing factor be in control of a system?

Do you, like others of your persuasion, believe that science is proved by polling scientists, and that the great sin of science is to be a skeptic? What tenets of science do YOU accept unconditionally, and without question?

Do you consider it to be a "crazy conspiracy theory" when people claim that the U.N. is only pushing this agenda to send money from the first world to the third world -- even if the U.N. states exactly that, both in interviews with IPCC officials, and in their action plan (in the section titled "Economic Justice")?

Or, do you consider it batty to believe that Michael Mann has committed scientific fraud, when you can verify it for yourself? After all, he has been cleared of all charges by the university that would have lost millions in funding had he been convicted. And, do you support data graphing programs that turn almost any stream of ascending data into a "hockey stick?" In your world, is it normal to have data graphing programs which do not accurately print the data?

And, what of the NASA GISS data set -- over time, it keeps getting colder back in the thirties, and warmer later. After constant manipulation, the data has now reversed the positions of several years, and generally in several stages. Should past data be subject to change to support a hypothesis, or should the hypothesis be altered, or abandoned, for not matching the reality?

And, what of the predictions made by climate science, after 20 years? How do they hold up? Here's an interesting datum -- In James Hansen's panic-inducing screed before Congress in 1988, he claimed that New York City would be flooded by now. His temperature predictions are equally impressive. Comparing his prediction for temperature in 2008, with the actual temperature, and with the null hypothesis (planetary temperature never changes) some interesting data emerge -- if it were only a part of a tenth of a degree cooler in 2008, the null hypothesis would have had two full orders of magnitude less error. Personally, I'd think a hypothesis THAT bad would need either major overhaul, or to be considered falsified, and discarded.

How about the auditing program, the one that played a key role in Bernie Madoff's conviction, being used on the Hadley CRU data set, and the NASA GISS data set, and indicting, to high probability, that both data sets were manufactured, rather than collected? Are you supposed to be having people fill in whatever numbers they want into global temperature data sets?

So, as someone I KNOW can think, I'm curious as to how you justify this faith in AGW scientifically.
 
2012-02-20 01:15:27 AM  

GeneralJim: So, what science do you base your support of the Church of Global Warming? I mean, Vaxxers can point to at least a perceived correlation between autism and vaccination rates, but the correlation factor between carbon dioxide level changes and global temperature changes is in the mid-to-high twenties, and it goes in the wrong direction. That is, temperature leads carbon dioxide level changes. May I point out how unlikely it is to have a trailing factor be in control of a system?


You really don't know what "correlation" means, do you? Correlation is simply the degree to which two variables are related. It has nothing to do with causality. A negative correlation would mean that as CO2 goes up, temperatures go down, and/or vice versa. It does not mean that temperatures changes lead to CO2 changes.

Other than that, your talking points are old (and long since refuted) news.
 
2012-02-20 01:28:20 AM  
Okay I'm done. Mr Wall of green text is here and he is the least likely to use or listen to reason. It's been interesting discussing all this spmkk but it just went full derp in one green wall o text post. Even more so than the other trolls who have all vanished.
 
2012-02-20 01:31:55 AM  

GeneralJim: I have you favorited as logical, except in politics. Considering that AGW is now a political, not scientific, issue, that makes sense.


Ahh, there we go. GeneralJim made up a new rule: CO2's asymmetric stretching will be voted on by the "Jew"nited Nations! Stamped it no eraseys!
 
2012-02-20 01:32:52 AM  

lokisbong: Okay I'm done. Mr Wall of green text is here and he is the least likely to use or listen to reason.


Abusing him is fun as hell though. I mean, it's really just a pound of fun in a stripper-filled cake to flog the shiat out of him and watch him rage.
 
2012-02-20 01:37:03 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: And no, this doesn't answer your question, except to suggest that it might be unanswerable.


Wrong, you just don't like the only possible answer: you'll have to go to war with China, India, and any other country trying to modernize its industry, and force them to stop producing greenhouse gases, killing as many people as necessary until they submit to your enlightened rule. And you'd better do that before you go to war with the USA, because that's the only nation that not only has the military might to do it, but also could be taken over by the climatologists without resorting to violence.

/personally I'd rather wage war on terror than war on weather
//but majority rules, and if the majority are so scared of climate change they'll butcher the world to try to stop it, oh well
 
2012-02-20 01:47:06 AM  

Tatterdemalian: And you'd better do that before you go to war with the USA, because that's the only nation that not only has the military might to do it, but also could be taken over by the climatologists without resorting to violence.


I think you've finally managed to out-paranoia the time you claimed I worked for Pakistani intelligence.
 
2012-02-20 02:05:28 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: So, what science do you base your support of the Church of Global Warming? I mean, Vaxxers can point to at least a perceived correlation between autism and vaccination rates, but the correlation factor between carbon dioxide level changes and global temperature changes is in the mid-to-high twenties, and it goes in the wrong direction. That is, temperature leads carbon dioxide level changes. May I point out how unlikely it is to have a trailing factor be in control of a system?

You really don't know what "correlation" means, do you? Correlation is simply the degree to which two variables are related. It has nothing to do with causality. A negative correlation would mean that as CO2 goes up, temperatures go down, and/or vice versa. It does not mean that temperatures changes lead to CO2 changes.

Other than that, your talking points are old (and long since refuted) news.


Actually, General Jim is just using #12 on skeptical science's list (new window) of most used denier myths. More generally, he's pretending that the greenhouse effect, the science of which has been understood for over 150 years, doesn't exist.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Link (new window)
 
2012-02-20 02:09:03 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Wrong, you just don't like the only possible answer: you'll have to go to war with China, India, and any other country trying to modernize its industry, and force them to stop producing greenhouse gases, killing as many people as necessary until they submit to your enlightened rule


This is what deniers actually believe.
 
2012-02-20 02:23:51 AM  

Tatterdemalian: common sense is an oxymoron: And no, this doesn't answer your question, except to suggest that it might be unanswerable.

Wrong, you just don't like the only possible answer: you'll have to go to war with China, India, and any other country trying to modernize its industry, and force them to stop producing greenhouse gases, killing as many people as necessary until they submit to your enlightened rule. And you'd better do that before you go to war with the USA, because that's the only nation that not only has the military might to do it, but also could be taken over by the climatologists without resorting to violence.

/personally I'd rather wage war on terror than war on weather
//but majority rules, and if the majority are so scared of climate change they'll butcher the world to try to stop it, oh well


The original question was whether CO2 emissions controls could be achieved "in a fair, enforceable way." So you're either a troll or fail at reading comprehension.
 
2012-02-20 02:32:08 AM  
Kazan:
cman: Where is the ice age promised to us in the 70s? I am still waiting for that.

In 1970 the vast majority of published papers predicted warming. (new window)

Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.
 
2012-02-20 02:32:43 AM  

Baryogenesis: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: So, what science do you base your support of the Church of Global Warming? I mean, Vaxxers can point to at least a perceived correlation between autism and vaccination rates, but the correlation factor between carbon dioxide level changes and global temperature changes is in the mid-to-high twenties, and it goes in the wrong direction. That is, temperature leads carbon dioxide level changes. May I point out how unlikely it is to have a trailing factor be in control of a system?

You really don't know what "correlation" means, do you? Correlation is simply the degree to which two variables are related. It has nothing to do with causality. A negative correlation would mean that as CO2 goes up, temperatures go down, and/or vice versa. It does not mean that temperatures changes lead to CO2 changes.

Other than that, your talking points are old (and long since refuted) news.

Actually, General Jim is just using #12 on skeptical science's list (new window) of most used denier myths. More generally, he's pretending that the greenhouse effect, the science of which has been understood for over 150 years, doesn't exist.


But at one point in the last thread he was insisting that he was the one who accepted AGW (except for one minor quibble) and that I was denying that CO2 affected temperature. I don't think he understands the talking points he's posting at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 802 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report