The way the data is presented is a huge factor as well. If I show you a couple complete cycles of a sine wave (which can be rather representative of a cycling issue like global temperature), you would likely agree that everything looks good. It crosses "0" at three points and has similar peaks to it's positive and negative dips.
I would, if it had any application to temperature change. It's a cycle, but there's no established period for 450 thousand years of data - which through the "sine wave" analogy out the window.
Now, if I take that same sine wave and only show you the part where it crosses "0" the second time (going negative) and a short period of time where it crosses "0" the third time (going positive), you would likely conclude that there is something wrong.
And If I show you a small section of a graph, I could show you any infinite number of formulas to match that curve. You're not talking math here, you're just using conjecture based on a bad assumption to begin with... In fact, nothing you are saying here has anything to do with math or science - your saying I'm extrapolating data by saying "if I extrapolate this data I can prove it looks fine".
Also, correct me if I'm wrong...but your statement seems to be alluding to a swing of a total of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, which is wrong. The total swing was only 2.34 degrees Fahrenheit over 1012 years - not 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
You're wrong. It's called a vector.
To illustrate - If your house, the pub, and the corner store are all on a straight line with your house in between the two locations:
You walk from your house to teh coner store and buy cigarettes. It is 1 mile from your house.
You walk from the corner store to the pub. It's 1.5mi away.
Your home is 0.5mi from the pub.
Did you only walk half a mile?
The situation is much the same here. If we cherry pick data and say how far apart the two endpoints are, then we are throwing out all the data between those start and end points because they are inconvenient to our narrative.
I'm going to keep this short, but from that very page: "The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events."
Basically, you can't say anything about the medieval warm period since there's a good chance it was only European. Using it as a baseline, of all things, is just foolish.
I think ice cores is really what we should be looking at if we're talking about global baselines. There are lots of different ice cores taken from around the world, but for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
As you can see from that graph, there is at least a relationship between temperature and CO2. You might also notice that our current level of atmospheric CO2 (~390 ppm) is considerably higher than it ever has been in the last few hundred thousand years (peaking at ~300 ppm). This alone is cause for concern.
I have come to the conclusion that this discussion is useless period. either side is willing to give or listen. people that believe in global warming will continue to do so those that do not will not.
why it is so divided is beyond me.
while humans have an impact i do not believe they have the impact that is claimed. there is to much politics and money being thrown around.
until there is an independant panel of scientists that is isolated in a bubble without outside interference then nothing will come out of this discussion.
the thing that gets me is the hypocrasy of people that are so gun ho about GW more so the people pushing it like al gore.
the live like i say not like i do.
unfortuantly this issue will never be settled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I have come to the conclusion that this discussion is useless period. either side is willing to give or listen. people that believe in global warming will continue to do so those that do not will not.
All you have to do to get me to listen to your opinion is to produce the same type of peer reviewed papers and scientific consensus that currently shows AGW as a real threat.
why it is so divided is beyond me.
while humans have an impact i do not believe they have the impact that is claimed. there is to much politics and money being thrown around.
You say you wonder why it is so divided and then propose a completely nonscientific opinion followed by a statement implying that the science behind AGW is driven by politics and money. Yep, I think we found out why it is so divided.
until there is an independant panel of scientists that is isolated in a bubble without outside interference then nothing will come out of this discussion.
Yeah, if only there was some sort of independent, anonymous review process for scientific research...
unfortuantly this issue will never be settled.
Kind of like how a round earth and evolution will never be settled either. Oh wait... Yeah actually the issue has been settled already (to the scientists whose opinions and research actually matter). Maybe not to right wing laymen, but it is settled nonetheless.
Kind of like how a round earth and evolution will never be settled either. Oh wait... Yeah actually the issue has been settled already (to the scientists whose opinions and research actually matter). Maybe not to right wing laymen, but it is settled nonetheless.
First off, there are skeptics in all varieties of political belief on this topic. This isn't a "right wing" issue only.
Second, it is not "settled nonetheless." If it was "settled nonetheless," there would be ~100% scientific consensus on it. But there isn't - not even close to 100%. And even 100% doesn't mean it's right - 100% of "scientists" knew the Earth was flat...until Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world. And 100% of "scientists" knew we were created by God...until Darwin pioneered the theory of evolution.
And comments like yours are exactly why a lot of people don't like the theory of global warming...it's been entirely politicized. And believe it or not, a lot of people don't like politics.
I don't mean this as a personal attack Logic...but the fact that you believe you're right because the side you support has more scientists backing it with data and studies in comparison to those like me who support the other side (which also has scientists that back it with data and studies) comes off as an elementary school argument that has resorted to "I'm right because my daddy can beat up your daddy."
These are all theories (including evolution), and they are called theories because they cannot be 100% proven. They can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for sure. But they can't be proven enough to become a scientific "law." That is why we still call it the "theory of evolution," because we haven't proven it enough yet to call it the "law of evolution." AGW is only a theory, and will likely remain a theory well beyond our lifetimes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
@Solaran:
Interestingly enough, I share a similar view with you on global warming, but a lot of the arguments you are making don't make any sense.
Second, it is not "settled nonetheless." If it was "settled nonetheless," there would be ~100% scientific consensus on it. But there isn't - not even close to 100%. And even 100% doesn't mean it's right - 100% of "scientists" knew the Earth was flat...until Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world. And 100% of "scientists" knew we were created by God...until Darwin pioneered the theory of evolution.
There will never be a "100%" consensus on anything. You will always have at least someone whose job, ego, or worldview relies on an idea being wrong, and they will argue tooth and nail against it. Expecting 100% agreement to qualify as scientific consensus is silly.
And comments like yours are exactly why a lot of people don't like the theory of global warming...it's been entirely politicized. And believe it or not, a lot of people don't like politics.
True, but who is to blame for that? The concept of global warming has nothing initially to do with politics (maybe money, but not politics). It became political after both parties realized that here was another issue that they could use to rev up their base (don't elect party X or their policies will destroy the world/economy). No party gets to play the blame game for politicizing this, they're both in bed on this one.
I don't mean this as a personal attack Logic...but the fact that you believe you're right because the side you support has more scientists backing it with data and studies in comparison to those like me who support the other side (which also has scientists that back it with data and studies)
These are all theories (including evolution), and they are called theories because they cannot be 100% proven. They can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for sure. But they can't be proven enough to become a scientific "law." That is why we still call it the "theory of evolution," because we haven't proven it enough yet to call it the "law of evolution." AGW is only a theory, and will likely remain a theory well beyond our lifetimes.
Good sir, outside of mathematically provable equations there is no way to 100% prove anything. Climate change and evolution, to use your examples, have so many complicating factors that to make 100% accurate models to prove them with would be realistically impossible. This begs the question though why such proof would be necessary. We routinely make regulations on food and medicine based on one or two studies, hardly enough for a scientific consensus. Why is the bar so much higher for global warming.
Look I agree that global warming has been blown heinously out of proportion. Humanity can and will be able to adapt to combat this sort of climate change, particularly given its gradual nature. Ecosystems will change, resources may become scarce in some areas, but the earth will manage. Your claims though make no sense and have little to no backing for them. Consider a different line of reasoning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Second, it is not "settled nonetheless." If it was "settled nonetheless," there would be ~100% scientific consensus on it. But there isn't - not even close to 100%. And even 100% doesn't mean it's right - 100% of "scientists" knew the Earth was flat...until Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world. And 100% of "scientists" knew we were created by God...until Darwin pioneered the theory of evolution.
59% of people think that scientists disagree significantly on global warming. When in reality, "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
And comments like yours are exactly why a lot of people don't like the theory of global warming...it's been entirely politicized. And believe it or not, a lot of people don't like politics.
Don't mistake pushback from scientists against right wing politicization of AGW as scientists trying to politicize AGW. There is a big difference here that is easy to see. 59% of people actually think that scientists disagree about global warming. This is the type of ignorance that we are battling, and it is not due to any sort of politicization on our side,
I would love nothing more than for this issue to be only about science. Unfortunately, deniers have tried to make it about politics instead of science.
I don't mean this as a personal attack Logic...but the fact that you believe you're right because the side you support has more scientists backing it with data and studies in comparison to those like me who support the other side (which also has scientists that back it with data and studies) comes off as an elementary school argument that has resorted to "I'm right because my daddy can beat up your daddy."
I will point you again to depth of the consensus and the fact that... actually your side really doesn't have any peer reviewed studies and data.
These are all theories (including evolution), and they are called theories because they cannot be 100% proven. They can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for sure. But they can't be proven enough to become a scientific "law." That is why we still call it the "theory of evolution," because we haven't proven it enough yet to call it the "law of evolution." AGW is only a theory, and will likely remain a theory well beyond our lifetimes.
Revealing a sadly common level of ignorance about what the word theory means in a scientific context does not help your credibility.
Hey now, science teachers teach the difference between a theory and a law in science classes, it is willful ignorance on the part of the perpetrator that thinks a theory becomes a law when it is "proven." I don't understand some people, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this has been proven in labs all over the world time and time again. The idea that it becomes "saturated" has been disproven time and time again because as the CO2 becomes more prevalent at our level, it gets into the higher atmosphere where it actually has a greater effect. Causality has been shown, why is it so hard for people to understand?
I am not really educated in the science of climatology. But I do know this:
-Almost every relevant scientific body in the US has officially stated that global warming is caused by carbon emissions made by humans. An even higher proportion of global (non-US) scientific organizations have made a similar official positive affirmation of the link between man-made pollutants and global warming. I think the only major exception in the US that has given a negative statement on the link has been the US organization of national oil geologists.
-Polls among scientists consistently show a strong majority claim there is a link. The closer their fields come to actual climatology (which global warming falls under the purview of), the stronger the majority is (climatologists are something like 95-98% strongly believe there is a link if I remember correctly).
-The main challengers and producers of opposing material to global warming are:
-Lay persons
-People, politicians, companies, and organizations with a strong vested interest (financially) in maintaining the status quo.
...
So basically, on the one hand we have a huge majority of scientists and experts saying there is a clear causal link between people emitting carbon and global warming. These people often have little to no significant economic or political connections with one another, and nothing clear to "gain" from government interference in the energy economy.
On the opposite end we have lay persons in the media, right-wing politicians, a tiny minority of scientists (single digit percentage), and gigantic oil/automotive/coal businesses who stand to lose massive amounts of profit and freedom from regulations if global warming moves from "debated" to "fact."
If there is one side of the debate plotting a conspiracy to twist/suppress facts or funding bogus research to suit economic/political ends, it should be obvious which party has the most to gain from it and the most means to accomplish muddying the issue.
No one is denying that there is a link between humans and global warming. What people are arguing over is how much humans are contributing to global warming.
Both sides are politicized. The side that claims humans have a large impact on global warming are funded, via grants, by people and organizations with a vested interest in global warming becoming "fact." That conflict of interests is just as dangerous as the conflict many have alluded to between the other scientists and groups/organizations that support them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
These are all theories (including evolution), and they are called theories because they cannot be 100% proven. They can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for sure. But they can't be proven enough to become a scientific "law." That is why we still call it the "theory of evolution," because we haven't proven it enough yet to call it the "law of evolution." AGW is only a theory, and will likely remain a theory well beyond our lifetimes.
Unlike LogicX, I'll actually explain why this is incorrect.
Scientific theory is not the same thing as the word "theory" is used in common parlance. In everyday life, the word "theory" is defined as a guess or an inkling of something that needs to have proof. However a theory is not a "guess" or a "hunch" in science. A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
A law in science is a description of an observed phenomenon. I emphasize "description" because it isn’t the same as an explanation. If scientists didn't make theories and they made nothing but laws, the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and relatively unknown.
Consider germ theory, which says that microbes are what cause many diseases. Would you really say that germ theory can't be proven because "it's just a theory"? Absolutely not. It would be ridiculous to try to argue that most diseases aren't caused by microbes when centuries of biologists clearly would say otherwise. Koch especially would be rolling in his grave.
The main problem stems from the fact that the words have different meanings in the scientific world compared to everyday life. In everyday life, laws are considered above everyone because we live in a society built on the rule of law. However, you don't have theories being transformed into laws in science because they become proven. There will never be a "law of evolution" because evolution does not empirically or mathematically describe how organisms change over time.
Both sides are politicized. The side that claims humans have a large impact on global warming are funded, via grants, by people and organizations with a vested interest in global warming becoming "fact." That conflict of interests is just as dangerous as the conflict many have alluded to between the other scientists and groups/organizations that support them.
Perhaps to a point, but with global warming we're talking about a 90%+ consensus of scientists worldwide. I grant that some of them may be "pushing" their data for these grants and such, but come on. Are you seriously suggesting that some body is effectively bribing 90% of the scientists worldwide?
Quote from "Lonederanger" »
So basically, on the one hand we have a huge majority of scientists and experts saying there is a clear causal link between people emitting carbon and global warming. These people often have little to no significant economic or political connections with one another, and nothing clear to "gain" from government interference in the energy economy.
Don't discard Solaran's point totally. There is a lot of money in R&D to solve problems, especially when they're as dire as AGW. I'm just not sold that such a group makes up more than possibly 25% of them.
Quote from "LogicX" »
I would love nothing more than for this issue to be only about science. Unfortunately, deniers have tried to make it about politics instead of science
And supporters in government have tried to use it as rationale to impose new regulations and ideas like carbon credits (which they would then naturally tax). Wouldn't it make more sense to instead focus on funding R&D as opposed to imposing restrictions? Both political sides are far more eager to use this as a political football than to actually solve the issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
Don't discard Solaran's point totally. There is a lot of money in R&D to solve problems, especially when they're as dire as AGW. I'm just not sold that such a group makes up more than possibly 25% of them.
I don't think the people studying tree rings or ice cores are really into much R&D.
And supporters in government have tried to use it as rationale to impose new regulations and ideas like carbon credits (which they would then naturally tax). Wouldn't it make more sense to instead focus on funding R&D as opposed to imposing restrictions? Both political sides are far more eager to use this as a political football than to actually solve the issue.
But what does some people politicizing AGW have to do with whether or not its actually occurring?
I don't think the people studying tree rings or ice cores are really into much R&D.
Propably not, hence why i placed my bet at like 25%. I'm not familiar with the different subsets that climate scientists fall into, so my estimate is likely inaccruate, but I think it's foolhardy to think that money plays no role in such a consensus. Scientists are humans too
Quote from "Timothy, Mimeslayer" »
But what does some people politicizing AGW have to do with whether or not its actually occurring?
Nothing at all. Logic had just claimed that the issue was being politicized by the right, and I was pointing out that the left are using the opposite position to justify their political aims as well.
Edit:
Solaran, next time you're on, I'm still curious why there needs to be such a consensus on Global warming before policy changes are involked. It's not uncommon for laws and regulations to be based solely on one or two studies, hardly a ~90%. Why the higher bar?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
I don't know why people pour more thought than there needs to be into the question of why there is animosity towards the theory of global warming. It's ridiculously simple: Big businesses loses business when a paradigm shift happens in the type of energy we consume and when we stop being dependent on oil. Is it really that hard to figure out? Big business controls the media, the people let the media form their opinions for them, and in all that ignorance no one sees they're being played. Money is what it comes down to. The animosity is a result of a trickle-down effect from the guys who want you to feel enraged and fight it - it's puppetry, and people love to be outraged, so they eat the bate.
Not much more a problem when it happened 15,000 years ago, and another 40 or so before that. Its a natural cycle. We are arguably affecting it to a degree, but it's inevitable nonetheless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You will bow before The Dark. @FearTheDarkMTG on Twitter
Where there is a doubt if it is actually happening (probably is) and more controvertially whether it is caused by man. I'm leaning toward no, but we still absoultely have to prepare for it or face serious problems.
Is global warming something we should be concerned with? Most definitely.
Is global warming the end of the world many Liberals make it out to be? Definitely not.
Look I agree that global warming has been blown heinously out of proportion. Humanity can and will be able to adapt to combat this sort of climate change, particularly given its gradual nature. Ecosystems will change, resources may become scarce in some areas, but the earth will manage.
Not much more a problem when it happened 15,000 years ago, and another 40 or so before that. Its a natural cycle. We are arguably affecting it to a degree, but it's inevitable nonetheless.
I just wanted to highlight the types of posts that really irk me on this issue.
Once again, people feel completely qualified to make completely speculative statements on a scientific subject they have no training in, and they make these statements with such immense confidence that it is just mind boggling.
You wouldn't presume to tell a physicist about quantum mechanics, or a neurosurgeon about proper technique, but when it comes to climatology, everyone is an expert. And everyone seems to feel qualified to make wild statements which they just happened to make up after googling something, but are really contrary to the scientific consensus. Oh really, AGW is overblown? Based on what criteria? Or did you just pull that out of nowhere, based only on a gut feeling?
If I had a nickel for every time some random layman declared their confidence in AGW being nothing more than natural cycles, or gave their unsubstantiated opinion that they just know that the earth will be able deal with increased CO2 emissions, I would be a rich man.
We get it. In your non-expert opinion, you have come up with what to you sounds like a reasonable opinion. To those of us realists out there though, you'll have to forgive the fact that we also get the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.
I just wanted to highlight the types of posts that really irk me on this issue.
Once again, people feel completely qualified to make completely speculative statements on a scientific subject they have no training in, and they make these statements with such immense confidence that it is just mind boggling.
You wouldn't presume to tell a physicist about quantum mechanics, or a neurosurgeon about proper technique, but when it comes to climatology, everyone is an expert. And everyone seems to feel qualified to make wild statements which they just happened to make up after googling something, but are really contrary to the scientific consensus. Oh really, AGW is overblown? Based on what criteria? Or did you just pull that out of nowhere, based only on a gut feeling?
If I had a nickel for every time some random layman declared their confidence in AGW being nothing more than natural cycles, or gave their unsubstantiated opinion that they just know that the earth will be able deal with increased CO2 emissions, I would be a rich man.
We get it. In your non-expert opinion, you have come up with what to you sounds like a reasonable opinion. To those of us realists out there though, you'll have to forgive the fact that we also get the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.
/endrant
To be honest this argument can be flipped right back at you. I've had a class where this was covered and an in-depth conersation with a teacher that lectures on climate events on human civilization, as well as personal research. I'm not an expert but I can have informed opinions and that opinion just happens to some what disagree with yours. I'm all for green energy, government subsidies of alt. energies, and a push for lower carbon dioxide levels. Is it because I think global warming is a significant threat? No. It's for a plethora of other reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
Saying that the climate has changed drastically in the past; therefore, human activity can't possibly affect the climate uses the same logical structure as
Humans got lung cancer in the past; therefore, cigarettes can't possibly cause lung cancer.
Saying that the climate has changed drastically in the past; therefore, human activity can't possibly affect the climate uses the same logical structure as
Humans got lung cancer in the past; therefore, cigarettes can't possibly cause lung cancer.
Correlation does not equal causation and that is about all there is to connect humans and climate change. It can easily be explained as natural occurrence unlike an uptick in lung cancer.
The earths climate cycles, if we as a civilization can adapt to it we will gain a lot toward very long term sustainability, let's work toward the goal without screaming bloody Mary and placing the blame on ourselves when there may not actually be a real problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
Correlation does not equal causation and that is about all there is to connect humans and climate change. It can easily be explained as natural occurrence unlike an uptick in lung cancer.
The earths climate cycles, if we as a civilization can adapt to it we will gain a lot toward very long term sustainability, let's work toward the goal without screaming bloody Mary and placing the blame on ourselves when there may not actually be a real problem.
Except that causality has been shown...for both in fact...
Correlation does not equal causation and that is about all there is to connect humans and climate change. It can easily be explained as natural occurrence unlike an uptick in lung cancer.
The earths climate cycles, if we as a civilization can adapt to it we will gain a lot toward very long term sustainability, let's work toward the goal without screaming bloody Mary and placing the blame on ourselves when there may not actually be a real problem.
Refer to post 45 of this thread. Also, I'll just add that once again you represent the misinformed public, which wrongly thinks that there is not a consensus among scientists for anthropogenic global warming.
Correlation does not equal causation and that is about all there is to connect humans and climate change. It can easily be explained as natural occurrence unlike an uptick in lung cancer.
The earths climate cycles, if we as a civilization can adapt to it we will gain a lot toward very long term sustainability, let's work toward the goal without screaming bloody Mary and placing the blame on ourselves when there may not actually be a real problem.
You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.
I find it funny that you have a big 'SAY NO TO FOX NEWS' thing in your sig, and yet you sound EXACTLY like the 'experts' that speak on the topic on that very news channel.
consensus means a group of people of like mind got together and agree on something.
consensus on things more so in science change. more so when new information is presented.
most recently there was a consensus on the string theory. that now has been replaced by the M theory or ribbon theory.
That is how real science works. real science does work by bullying other scientists. which is why climatology has gotten a bad name and it's
credibility as far as public concern has gone downhill.
The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW.
this has been the case in many scientific studies only to change when more information is available.
Just as last year they have found that the PDO and AMO have major affects on climate.
In fact more than what they thought.
yes there is a reason to be skeptic of an organization who's head has a vested interest in TERI and use to serve as head of the board and still has a major stake.
TERI if you do not know is a global massive carbon trading company.
That is why i stated early until there is a completely independant panel that is free of any outside influence to go back and redo all of the research and data to get to the bottom of it and include all factors this will continue to be a skeptical field of study.
which i think is bad for that part of science in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Look I agree that global warming has been blown heinously out of proportion. Humanity can and will be able to adapt to combat this sort of climate change, particularly given its gradual nature. Ecosystems will change, resources may become scarce in some areas, but the earth will manage.
I just wanted to highlight the types of posts that really irk me on this issue.
Once again, people feel completely qualified to make completely speculative statements on a scientific subject they have no training in, and they make these statements with such immense confidence that it is just mind boggling.
You wouldn't presume to tell a physicist about quantum mechanics, or a neurosurgeon about proper technique, but when it comes to climatology, everyone is an expert. And everyone seems to feel qualified to make wild statements which they just happened to make up after googling something, but are really contrary to the scientific consensus. Oh really, AGW is overblown? Based on what criteria? Or did you just pull that out of nowhere, based only on a gut feeling?
If I had a nickel for every time some random layman declared their confidence in AGW being nothing more than natural cycles, or gave their unsubstantiated opinion that they just know that the earth will be able deal with increased CO2 emissions, I would be a rich man.
We get it. In your non-expert opinion, you have come up with what to you sounds like a reasonable opinion. To those of us realists out there though, you'll have to forgive the fact that we also get the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.
/endrant
The post you quoted was mine.
Back on topic, why do you think it silly to find global warming overblown? I've watched programs where climate scientists talk about how if we don't act within the decade we'll pass some point of no return. Before what though? Mostly they just talk about severe weather and rising ocean levels. That stuff is bad, but to treat it like some apocolyptic doomsday scenario seems extreme.
Note I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be adopting green technology and the like. I do have enough sense though to see that these dire warnings are being embelished (not the projections, but how they're presented) to add urgency to something people normally would be slow to act on.
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
A 100% accurate model is a contradiction.
F = ma seems to be a pretty accurate one. I dunno if model applies to equations though. Any scientists who can help me out on this one?
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
What sort of R&D are you talking about? Do you think this optimism is warranted, that technology will find a solution for everything? This is basically blind hope for a miracle.
More efficient technology, on everything from light bulbs and appliances to batteries and car fuel efficiency (and i'm not talking just extra regulations, support their R&D to enable such regulations to be more quickly met). Look into new technologies to capture CO2, and even better to find industrial use for it.
Some of these ideas are probably a little optimistic, yes, but I think that an equal number of them could be developed and produced cheaper with incentives from the government (once again, not necessarily regulations, but possible tax credits or grants.) I'm firmly convinced that industry and innovation will play a much larger role than government if global warming is to be combatted. Political will is important, but without the technology to implement it in a sound fashion that will means nothing (and consequentially won't happen, because many necessary actions will likely be unpopular if too expensive).
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
You have to consider the thermodynamics of this. Fossil fuels are the fundaments of the industrial revolution and all its advances the past two centuries. There is no other energy supply on this planet that can compare to it other than perhaps nuclear fuels - cf. the carbon footprint concept. And nuclear energy has its own problems.
I'm no expert on nuclear power, but if the steam produced is released (and I'm reasonably sure from those smokestacks that it is) then nuclear is just trading one greenhouse gas for another (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas), which really doesn't solve the issue (unless technology to recapture the steam was developed).
On that note, with enough investment, geothermal could very well be a viable source, so long as the steam is recycled properly. Tidal power on the coasts and hydro electric are also locally good options to consider. You're right that fossil fuels will probably still be important for many decades to come no matter what happens, but they and nuclear are hardly the only options.
Quote from "Mad Hat" »
The concept of global warming has everything to do with politics. In essence, it's the discovery of a new externalized cost. The classic approach to internalizing costs has been government imposing some sort of regulation. As the cost to be internalized with global warming is enormous, there was no way this would not become a very contentious issue. Don't forget that there are still people out there denying other externalities, like the negative effects of CFC's or asbestos fibres.
The intriguing question here is why American politicians have become so quick to deny the science of Global Warming, whereas politicians in other countries tend to take a different approach (mostly ignoring it as much as possible). This isn't just about Global Warming: think of the controversies surrounding evolution and CFC's.
Fair point, I didn't really think about it that way. As an aside, I really do find your second point intriguing. I wonder if it has to do with our two party system, as one party always will try to run counter to the other to spread its support base. It's certainly intriguing to consider.
Quote from "Torm" »
You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.
To be fair, when anybody claiming that it isn't a problem is called stupid or uninformed, that doesn't exactly encourage healthy discussion which, as you say, is the whole point of this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And If I show you a small section of a graph, I could show you any infinite number of formulas to match that curve. You're not talking math here, you're just using conjecture based on a bad assumption to begin with... In fact, nothing you are saying here has anything to do with math or science - your saying I'm extrapolating data by saying "if I extrapolate this data I can prove it looks fine".
You're wrong. It's called a vector.
To illustrate - If your house, the pub, and the corner store are all on a straight line with your house in between the two locations:
The situation is much the same here. If we cherry pick data and say how far apart the two endpoints are, then we are throwing out all the data between those start and end points because they are inconvenient to our narrative.
I'm going to keep this short, but from that very page: "The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events."
Basically, you can't say anything about the medieval warm period since there's a good chance it was only European. Using it as a baseline, of all things, is just foolish.
I think ice cores is really what we should be looking at if we're talking about global baselines. There are lots of different ice cores taken from around the world, but for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
As you can see from that graph, there is at least a relationship between temperature and CO2. You might also notice that our current level of atmospheric CO2 (~390 ppm) is considerably higher than it ever has been in the last few hundred thousand years (peaking at ~300 ppm). This alone is cause for concern.
why it is so divided is beyond me.
while humans have an impact i do not believe they have the impact that is claimed. there is to much politics and money being thrown around.
until there is an independant panel of scientists that is isolated in a bubble without outside interference then nothing will come out of this discussion.
the thing that gets me is the hypocrasy of people that are so gun ho about GW more so the people pushing it like al gore.
the live like i say not like i do.
unfortuantly this issue will never be settled.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
All you have to do to get me to listen to your opinion is to produce the same type of peer reviewed papers and scientific consensus that currently shows AGW as a real threat.
You say you wonder why it is so divided and then propose a completely nonscientific opinion followed by a statement implying that the science behind AGW is driven by politics and money. Yep, I think we found out why it is so divided.
Yeah, if only there was some sort of independent, anonymous review process for scientific research...
Kind of like how a round earth and evolution will never be settled either. Oh wait... Yeah actually the issue has been settled already (to the scientists whose opinions and research actually matter). Maybe not to right wing laymen, but it is settled nonetheless.
First off, there are skeptics in all varieties of political belief on this topic. This isn't a "right wing" issue only.
Second, it is not "settled nonetheless." If it was "settled nonetheless," there would be ~100% scientific consensus on it. But there isn't - not even close to 100%. And even 100% doesn't mean it's right - 100% of "scientists" knew the Earth was flat...until Columbus didn't fall off the edge of the world. And 100% of "scientists" knew we were created by God...until Darwin pioneered the theory of evolution.
And comments like yours are exactly why a lot of people don't like the theory of global warming...it's been entirely politicized. And believe it or not, a lot of people don't like politics.
I don't mean this as a personal attack Logic...but the fact that you believe you're right because the side you support has more scientists backing it with data and studies in comparison to those like me who support the other side (which also has scientists that back it with data and studies) comes off as an elementary school argument that has resorted to "I'm right because my daddy can beat up your daddy."
These are all theories (including evolution), and they are called theories because they cannot be 100% proven. They can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for sure. But they can't be proven enough to become a scientific "law." That is why we still call it the "theory of evolution," because we haven't proven it enough yet to call it the "law of evolution." AGW is only a theory, and will likely remain a theory well beyond our lifetimes.
Interestingly enough, I share a similar view with you on global warming, but a lot of the arguments you are making don't make any sense.
There will never be a "100%" consensus on anything. You will always have at least someone whose job, ego, or worldview relies on an idea being wrong, and they will argue tooth and nail against it. Expecting 100% agreement to qualify as scientific consensus is silly.
True, but who is to blame for that? The concept of global warming has nothing initially to do with politics (maybe money, but not politics). It became political after both parties realized that here was another issue that they could use to rev up their base (don't elect party X or their policies will destroy the world/economy). No party gets to play the blame game for politicizing this, they're both in bed on this one.
I decided to look into this claim, and as it turns out, it seems that LogicX does have a few more scientists backing his side. Now that doesn't make him by default right, but it hardly leaves him wanting for credibility either.
Good sir, outside of mathematically provable equations there is no way to 100% prove anything. Climate change and evolution, to use your examples, have so many complicating factors that to make 100% accurate models to prove them with would be realistically impossible. This begs the question though why such proof would be necessary. We routinely make regulations on food and medicine based on one or two studies, hardly enough for a scientific consensus. Why is the bar so much higher for global warming.
Look I agree that global warming has been blown heinously out of proportion. Humanity can and will be able to adapt to combat this sort of climate change, particularly given its gradual nature. Ecosystems will change, resources may become scarce in some areas, but the earth will manage. Your claims though make no sense and have little to no backing for them. Consider a different line of reasoning.
59% of people think that scientists disagree significantly on global warming. When in reality, "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
(Sources:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/59_say_scientists_disagree_significantly_over_global_warming)
Don't mistake pushback from scientists against right wing politicization of AGW as scientists trying to politicize AGW. There is a big difference here that is easy to see. 59% of people actually think that scientists disagree about global warming. This is the type of ignorance that we are battling, and it is not due to any sort of politicization on our side,
I would love nothing more than for this issue to be only about science. Unfortunately, deniers have tried to make it about politics instead of science.
I will point you again to depth of the consensus and the fact that... actually your side really doesn't have any peer reviewed studies and data.
Revealing a sadly common level of ignorance about what the word theory means in a scientific context does not help your credibility.
-Almost every relevant scientific body in the US has officially stated that global warming is caused by carbon emissions made by humans. An even higher proportion of global (non-US) scientific organizations have made a similar official positive affirmation of the link between man-made pollutants and global warming. I think the only major exception in the US that has given a negative statement on the link has been the US organization of national oil geologists.
-Polls among scientists consistently show a strong majority claim there is a link. The closer their fields come to actual climatology (which global warming falls under the purview of), the stronger the majority is (climatologists are something like 95-98% strongly believe there is a link if I remember correctly).
-The main challengers and producers of opposing material to global warming are:
-Lay persons
-People, politicians, companies, and organizations with a strong vested interest (financially) in maintaining the status quo.
...
So basically, on the one hand we have a huge majority of scientists and experts saying there is a clear causal link between people emitting carbon and global warming. These people often have little to no significant economic or political connections with one another, and nothing clear to "gain" from government interference in the energy economy.
On the opposite end we have lay persons in the media, right-wing politicians, a tiny minority of scientists (single digit percentage), and gigantic oil/automotive/coal businesses who stand to lose massive amounts of profit and freedom from regulations if global warming moves from "debated" to "fact."
If there is one side of the debate plotting a conspiracy to twist/suppress facts or funding bogus research to suit economic/political ends, it should be obvious which party has the most to gain from it and the most means to accomplish muddying the issue.
Both sides are politicized. The side that claims humans have a large impact on global warming are funded, via grants, by people and organizations with a vested interest in global warming becoming "fact." That conflict of interests is just as dangerous as the conflict many have alluded to between the other scientists and groups/organizations that support them.
Unlike LogicX, I'll actually explain why this is incorrect.
Scientific theory is not the same thing as the word "theory" is used in common parlance. In everyday life, the word "theory" is defined as a guess or an inkling of something that needs to have proof. However a theory is not a "guess" or a "hunch" in science. A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
A law in science is a description of an observed phenomenon. I emphasize "description" because it isn’t the same as an explanation. If scientists didn't make theories and they made nothing but laws, the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and relatively unknown.
Consider germ theory, which says that microbes are what cause many diseases. Would you really say that germ theory can't be proven because "it's just a theory"? Absolutely not. It would be ridiculous to try to argue that most diseases aren't caused by microbes when centuries of biologists clearly would say otherwise. Koch especially would be rolling in his grave.
The main problem stems from the fact that the words have different meanings in the scientific world compared to everyday life. In everyday life, laws are considered above everyone because we live in a society built on the rule of law. However, you don't have theories being transformed into laws in science because they become proven. There will never be a "law of evolution" because evolution does not empirically or mathematically describe how organisms change over time.
Perhaps to a point, but with global warming we're talking about a 90%+ consensus of scientists worldwide. I grant that some of them may be "pushing" their data for these grants and such, but come on. Are you seriously suggesting that some body is effectively bribing 90% of the scientists worldwide?
Don't discard Solaran's point totally. There is a lot of money in R&D to solve problems, especially when they're as dire as AGW. I'm just not sold that such a group makes up more than possibly 25% of them.
And supporters in government have tried to use it as rationale to impose new regulations and ideas like carbon credits (which they would then naturally tax). Wouldn't it make more sense to instead focus on funding R&D as opposed to imposing restrictions? Both political sides are far more eager to use this as a political football than to actually solve the issue.
I don't think the people studying tree rings or ice cores are really into much R&D.
But what does some people politicizing AGW have to do with whether or not its actually occurring?
Propably not, hence why i placed my bet at like 25%. I'm not familiar with the different subsets that climate scientists fall into, so my estimate is likely inaccruate, but I think it's foolhardy to think that money plays no role in such a consensus. Scientists are humans too
Nothing at all. Logic had just claimed that the issue was being politicized by the right, and I was pointing out that the left are using the opposite position to justify their political aims as well.
Edit:
Solaran, next time you're on, I'm still curious why there needs to be such a consensus on Global warming before policy changes are involked. It's not uncommon for laws and regulations to be based solely on one or two studies, hardly a ~90%. Why the higher bar?
(Also known as Xenphire)
I just wanted to highlight the types of posts that really irk me on this issue.
Once again, people feel completely qualified to make completely speculative statements on a scientific subject they have no training in, and they make these statements with such immense confidence that it is just mind boggling.
You wouldn't presume to tell a physicist about quantum mechanics, or a neurosurgeon about proper technique, but when it comes to climatology, everyone is an expert. And everyone seems to feel qualified to make wild statements which they just happened to make up after googling something, but are really contrary to the scientific consensus. Oh really, AGW is overblown? Based on what criteria? Or did you just pull that out of nowhere, based only on a gut feeling?
If I had a nickel for every time some random layman declared their confidence in AGW being nothing more than natural cycles, or gave their unsubstantiated opinion that they just know that the earth will be able deal with increased CO2 emissions, I would be a rich man.
We get it. In your non-expert opinion, you have come up with what to you sounds like a reasonable opinion. To those of us realists out there though, you'll have to forgive the fact that we also get the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.
/endrant
To be honest this argument can be flipped right back at you. I've had a class where this was covered and an in-depth conersation with a teacher that lectures on climate events on human civilization, as well as personal research. I'm not an expert but I can have informed opinions and that opinion just happens to some what disagree with yours. I'm all for green energy, government subsidies of alt. energies, and a push for lower carbon dioxide levels. Is it because I think global warming is a significant threat? No. It's for a plethora of other reasons.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Humans got lung cancer in the past; therefore, cigarettes can't possibly cause lung cancer.
Correlation does not equal causation and that is about all there is to connect humans and climate change. It can easily be explained as natural occurrence unlike an uptick in lung cancer.
The earths climate cycles, if we as a civilization can adapt to it we will gain a lot toward very long term sustainability, let's work toward the goal without screaming bloody Mary and placing the blame on ourselves when there may not actually be a real problem.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Except that causality has been shown...for both in fact...
Refer to post 45 of this thread. Also, I'll just add that once again you represent the misinformed public, which wrongly thinks that there is not a consensus among scientists for anthropogenic global warming.
You should seriously look at some peer-reviewed material before you start spouting off stupid **** like "BUT CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION" ; You know very little of what you're talking about. The general consensus among very recent research points all fingers towards AGW. We're helping it along. Whether or not that's a problem is a completely different issue; and the point of this thread.
I find it funny that you have a big 'SAY NO TO FOX NEWS' thing in your sig, and yet you sound EXACTLY like the 'experts' that speak on the topic on that very news channel.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube
consensus on things more so in science change. more so when new information is presented.
most recently there was a consensus on the string theory. that now has been replaced by the M theory or ribbon theory.
That is how real science works. real science does work by bullying other scientists. which is why climatology has gotten a bad name and it's
credibility as far as public concern has gone downhill.
this has been the case in many scientific studies only to change when more information is available.
Just as last year they have found that the PDO and AMO have major affects on climate.
In fact more than what they thought.
yes there is a reason to be skeptic of an organization who's head has a vested interest in TERI and use to serve as head of the board and still has a major stake.
TERI if you do not know is a global massive carbon trading company.
That is why i stated early until there is a completely independant panel that is free of any outside influence to go back and redo all of the research and data to get to the bottom of it and include all factors this will continue to be a skeptical field of study.
which i think is bad for that part of science in general.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
The post you quoted was mine.
Back on topic, why do you think it silly to find global warming overblown? I've watched programs where climate scientists talk about how if we don't act within the decade we'll pass some point of no return. Before what though? Mostly they just talk about severe weather and rising ocean levels. That stuff is bad, but to treat it like some apocolyptic doomsday scenario seems extreme.
Note I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be adopting green technology and the like. I do have enough sense though to see that these dire warnings are being embelished (not the projections, but how they're presented) to add urgency to something people normally would be slow to act on.
F = ma seems to be a pretty accurate one. I dunno if model applies to equations though. Any scientists who can help me out on this one?
More efficient technology, on everything from light bulbs and appliances to batteries and car fuel efficiency (and i'm not talking just extra regulations, support their R&D to enable such regulations to be more quickly met). Look into new technologies to capture CO2, and even better to find industrial use for it.
Some of these ideas are probably a little optimistic, yes, but I think that an equal number of them could be developed and produced cheaper with incentives from the government (once again, not necessarily regulations, but possible tax credits or grants.) I'm firmly convinced that industry and innovation will play a much larger role than government if global warming is to be combatted. Political will is important, but without the technology to implement it in a sound fashion that will means nothing (and consequentially won't happen, because many necessary actions will likely be unpopular if too expensive).
I'm no expert on nuclear power, but if the steam produced is released (and I'm reasonably sure from those smokestacks that it is) then nuclear is just trading one greenhouse gas for another (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas), which really doesn't solve the issue (unless technology to recapture the steam was developed).
On that note, with enough investment, geothermal could very well be a viable source, so long as the steam is recycled properly. Tidal power on the coasts and hydro electric are also locally good options to consider. You're right that fossil fuels will probably still be important for many decades to come no matter what happens, but they and nuclear are hardly the only options.
Fair point, I didn't really think about it that way. As an aside, I really do find your second point intriguing. I wonder if it has to do with our two party system, as one party always will try to run counter to the other to spread its support base. It's certainly intriguing to consider.
To be fair, when anybody claiming that it isn't a problem is called stupid or uninformed, that doesn't exactly encourage healthy discussion which, as you say, is the whole point of this thread.