ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2011) — Global warming is real, according to a major study released Oct. 20. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1°C since the mid-1950s.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021144716.htm
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (60% of Full)
Home
>
General Discussion
>
Topic
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real
All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner
of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion
and not fact until verified independently.
October 21, 2011 12:23PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 21, 2011 05:40PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
Was the debate ever about real changes in temps? I think the real debate is about the claim that man causes the change. Temps can go up and down as shown by the coming and going of the ice ages. I read an article that a Nasa supercomputer model of a supernova shows that supernovas don't explode but rather collapse back in on themselves. Does this mean that there are no supernovas? No, it means that we don't have the knowledge to accurately model such a complex system, even though we already know how it turns out. Do we have the knowledge to accurately model the earths entire climate system? If they wanted to follow the suggestions in the movie or book "Cool It" them maybe I could get on board. The movie doesn't deny climate change, but suggests positive changes, rather than just wasting money and improving nothing as the current politicians seem to want to do. Ken
October 21, 2011 06:11PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
traildad
Was the debate ever about real changes in temps? I think the real debate is about the claim that man causes the change.
The caption below the photo on the back page of the current Sierra magazine might provide some perspective:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/lastwords.aspx
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 21, 2011 11:29PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
So what do we do? Out law light bulbs and delay the temp increase by a few minutes? Outlaw cars, industry and electrical power? Destroy our economy while China builds two new coal power plants every week? If we want to prevent a possible problem, we have to do it in a constructive, not destructive way. We must create a better way, not just unplug the world.
October 22, 2011 07:50AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
traildad
So what do we do? Out law light bulbs and delay the temp increase by a few minutes? Outlaw cars, industry and electrical power? Destroy our economy while China builds two new coal power plants every week? If we want to prevent a possible problem, we have to do it in a constructive, not destructive way. We must create a better way, not just unplug the world.
(1) Since incandescent light bulbs are approximately 90% efficient at producing heat, they are a great way to warm your house.
[Love that RonaldReaganesque (i.e., 19th Century) technology. Why are you using a computer instead of a typewriter?]
(2) Quit buying junk made in China.
[It continually amazes me that people complain about "dictates" from a governmental body (your representatives) but readily embrace dictates from private industry. As another example, they are worried about "protecting" their privacy from the government, but blithely disseminate everything about themselves on social networking sites and to the companies that run them.]
(3) Ever hear the term "alternative energy" bandied about?
[Actually, that is a misnomer, since all of our energy is tracable to a solar furnace (including heat produced by the radioactive decay of nuclear isotopes).]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2011 03:44PM by szalkowski.
October 23, 2011 11:00AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
Quote
szalkowski
The caption below the photo on the back page of the current Sierra magazine might provide some perspective:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/lastwords.aspx
Quotes like this one from the caption of that photo drives me nuts because of its simplistic inaccuracy:
"The world's volcanoes spew about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year"
The quote implies that there's a roughly constant amount of CO2 brought forth into the atmosphere by volcanic activities. Yet anyone who is interested in volcanology ought to know that volcanic activity varies GREATLY year to year.
A major factor in shot-term climate change (one to five year periods) can be the result of a marked increase or decrease of certain types of volcanic activity. I wish the Sierra Club was a bit more accurate in that caption and stated a range of numbers for the amount of CO2 emitted through volcanoes each year.
October 23, 2011 11:22AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
What's even more simplistic, and just plain wrong, are those that are naive enough to believe that volcanic activity has anything to do with the latest global warming trend. They should bother to learn a few facts like volcanoes put out, roughly, 200 million tons of CO2 per year, but fossil fuel consumption put out an average of over 28 billion tons. So, volcanoes contribute about 1 percent of the annual additional atmospheric CO2.
It's simplistic mistakes like that that are the reason it is useless to even discuss this with deniars. The facts don't matter to them. All that they care about is disagreeing. They get a feeling of power in claiming science is wrong. It's the same with creationists, flat earthers, religious extremists, 911 truthers, and other conspiracy style beliefs.
It's simplistic mistakes like that that are the reason it is useless to even discuss this with deniars. The facts don't matter to them. All that they care about is disagreeing. They get a feeling of power in claiming science is wrong. It's the same with creationists, flat earthers, religious extremists, 911 truthers, and other conspiracy style beliefs.
October 23, 2011 11:39AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
Quote
plawrence
Quote
szalkowski
The caption below the photo on the back page of the current Sierra magazine might provide some perspective:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/lastwords.aspx
Quotes like this one from the caption of that photo drives me nuts because of its simplistic inaccuracy:
"The world's volcanoes spew about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year"
The quote implies that there's a roughly constant amount of CO2 brought forth into the atmosphere by volcanic activities. Yet anyone who is interested in volcanology ought to know that volcanic activity varies GREATLY year to year.
A major factor in shot-term climate change (one to five year periods) can be the result of a marked increase or decrease of certain types of volcanic activity. I wish the Sierra Club was a bit more accurate in that caption and stated a range of numbers for the amount of CO2 emitted through volcanoes each year.
The USGS states that volcanoes release more than 130 milllion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. 130 million tonnes X 2200lbs/2000lbs = 143 million tons. Not quite "about 200 million tons" but still not horribly off.
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." USGS
So we have something between "more than 130 million tonnes" and "about 200 million tones" per year. Even if it varies "greatly" from year to year it is still only about 1% of what human activity puts into the atmosphere. Most CO2 released by natural causes is reabsorbed by natural processes. Human activity seems to be releasing lots of CO2 and at the same time diminishing through deforestation the re-absorption capability.
I guess the big question is do we wait to see if the naysayers are correct or do we take heed of what the scientific community says.
Old Dude
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2011 11:40AM by mrcondron.
October 23, 2011 12:21PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
Quote
mrcondron
Quote
plawrence
Quote
szalkowski
The caption below the photo on the back page of the current Sierra magazine might provide some perspective:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/lastwords.aspx
Quotes like this one from the caption of that photo drives me nuts because of its simplistic inaccuracy:
"The world's volcanoes spew about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year"
The quote implies that there's a roughly constant amount of CO2 brought forth into the atmosphere by volcanic activities. Yet anyone who is interested in volcanology ought to know that volcanic activity varies GREATLY year to year.
A major factor in shot-term climate change (one to five year periods) can be the result of a marked increase or decrease of certain types of volcanic activity. I wish the Sierra Club was a bit more accurate in that caption and stated a range of numbers for the amount of CO2 emitted through volcanoes each year.
The USGS states that volcanoes release more than 130 milllion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. 130 million tonnes X 2200lbs/2000lbs = 143 million tons. Not quite "about 200 million tons" but still not horribly off.
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year." USGS
So we have something between "more than 130 million tonnes" and "about 200 million tones" per year. Even if it varies "greatly" from year to year it is still only about 1% of what human activity puts into the atmosphere. Most CO2 released by natural causes is reabsorbed by natural processes. Human activity seems to be releasing lots of CO2 and at the same time diminishing through deforestation the re-absorption capability.
I guess the big question is do we wait to see if the naysayers are correct or do we take heed of what the scientific community says.
I agree with what you stated but my point is that it is important to be accurate in what is stated regarding what's more or less known and not to oversimplify the stating of the facts. This is what gives many naysayers and skeptics ammunition to shoot down legitimate theories. It's this type of sloppy statements in regards to science that has brought about things like Climategate and Glaciergate. Controversies that could have easily been avoided or averted if some scientist were more precise and careful in what they stated.
Inaccurate statements in regards to scientific discovery is what provides fuel to the fire for the skeptics and naysayers. It ought to be avoided.
October 23, 2011 11:52AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
plawrence
Quote
szalkowski
The caption below the photo on the back page of the current Sierra magazine might provide some perspective:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/lastwords.aspx
Quotes like this one... (blah, blah, blah)
Look up the meaning of "perspective."
While you're at it, also look up "order of magnitude."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2011 11:55AM by szalkowski.
October 23, 2011 12:24PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
October 23, 2011 12:29PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
October 25, 2011 07:14AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
What I find most puzzling about the climate discussion is that it seems to be inextricably linked to some sort of primordial emotional and religious response similar to the concept of heliocentric solar system or the theory of evolution. Often the term "believe" is linked to climate change. Science has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a religious concept. Why to certain topics in science seem to become essentially veiled religious and philosophical discussions? To some extent it is understandable that Galileo and Darwin would confront this hysteria, but why has it occurred now with the climate issue? There is something profoundly threatening to certain individuals about the research and study of climate, but why? It is nothing more than atmospheric and earth science. It is hard to understand how climate studies threaten social conservatives, conservative ideology, or some religious view of the world. Very strange, but humans are the most peculiar species!
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
October 25, 2011 07:43AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 2,321 |
Quote
Frank Furter
What I find most puzzling about the climate discussion is that it seems to be inextricably linked to some sort of primordial emotional and religious response similar to the concept of heliocentric solar system or the theory of evolution. Often the term "believe" is linked to climate change. Science has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a religious concept. Why to certain topics in science seem to become essentially veiled religious and philosophical discussions? To some extent it is understandable that Galileo and Darwin would confront this hysteria, but why has it occurred now with the climate issue? There is something profoundly threatening to certain individuals about the research and study of climate, but why? It is nothing more than atmospheric and earth science. It is hard to understand how climate studies threaten social conservatives, conservative ideology, or some religious view of the world. Very strange, but humans are the most peculiar species!
I think it has to do with the reduction of fossil fuel burning, enhancing solar power technology, and other left wing stuff.
Drill and mine, regardless of the value of the habitat.
Old Dude
October 25, 2011 09:25AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Quote
Frank Furter
What I find most puzzling about the climate discussion is that it seems to be inextricably linked to some sort of primordial emotional and religious response similar to the concept of heliocentric solar system or the theory of evolution. Often the term "believe" is linked to climate change. Science has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a religious concept. Why to certain topics in science seem to become essentially veiled religious and philosophical discussions? To some extent it is understandable that Galileo and Darwin would confront this hysteria, but why has it occurred now with the climate issue? There is something profoundly threatening to certain individuals about the research and study of climate, but why? It is nothing more than atmospheric and earth science. It is hard to understand how climate studies threaten social conservatives, conservative ideology, or some religious view of the world. Very strange, but humans are the most peculiar species!
Your answer lies in psychology, specifically the study of the motives behind conspiracy theorists. Generally conspiracy theorists are disenfranchised and feel powerless. By "knowing" something bad about those they feel made them powerless they feel they gain back some of that power. That's why the facts mean nothing to them. That's why you cannot have a rational discussion with them. They have a dire need to maintain the conspiracy belief and will do so at all costs.
October 25, 2011 02:16PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
Dave
Quote
Frank Furter
What I find most puzzling about the climate discussion is that it seems to be inextricably linked to some sort of primordial emotional and religious response similar to the concept of heliocentric solar system or the theory of evolution. Often the term "believe" is linked to climate change. Science has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a religious concept. Why to certain topics in science seem to become essentially veiled religious and philosophical discussions? To some extent it is understandable that Galileo and Darwin would confront this hysteria, but why has it occurred now with the climate issue? There is something profoundly threatening to certain individuals about the research and study of climate, but why? It is nothing more than atmospheric and earth science. It is hard to understand how climate studies threaten social conservatives, conservative ideology, or some religious view of the world. Very strange, but humans are the most peculiar species!
Your answer lies in psychology, specifically the study of the motives behind conspiracy theorists. Generally conspiracy theorists are disenfranchised and feel powerless. By "knowing" something bad about those they feel made them powerless they feel they gain back some of that power. That's why the facts mean nothing to them. That's why you cannot have a rational discussion with them. They have a dire need to maintain the conspiracy belief and will do so at all costs.
But, the concept of CO2 and global warming has been kicked around for close to 100 years. Why is it now such a cause celebre and why is this particular science suddenly populated by many fraudulent and deceptive scientists (according to the popular charge)? Did climate science suddenly attract a bunch of ex-convicts or former wall street money managers who needed new careers? And, finally, why isn't other recent scientific research (for example, planets in other solar systems, string theory, importance of dietary fiber) subject to the same conspiracy accusations? I don't recall this level of hysteria with water fluoridation or UFO sightings-- both issues that seemed to bring the conspiracy wackos out of the woodwork in the 60's.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 25, 2011 03:11PM | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 688 |
For the sake of argument:
If you accepted the concept that climate change, human cause, etc is "unsettled science" then it is easier to understand the accusation that climate change is a "belief system" no different than someone who believes in whatever faith. It is similar to the arguments regarding Origin of Life. Creationists may argue that any given scientific theory is just as much a belief system as their own beliefs because the science is unsettled and it takes "faith" to accept.
Why is climate change different than UFOs? H20 Fluoridation?
Well, if someone argued that we need to build a massive Defense System to protect us from Aliens costing vast sums of money that would impact our economy and industry there likely would be another group of people that would call that solution completely unwarranted and a waste of money and resources.
This analogy only works if one is not willing to accept that climate change is a settled science.
If you accepted the concept that climate change, human cause, etc is "unsettled science" then it is easier to understand the accusation that climate change is a "belief system" no different than someone who believes in whatever faith. It is similar to the arguments regarding Origin of Life. Creationists may argue that any given scientific theory is just as much a belief system as their own beliefs because the science is unsettled and it takes "faith" to accept.
Why is climate change different than UFOs? H20 Fluoridation?
Well, if someone argued that we need to build a massive Defense System to protect us from Aliens costing vast sums of money that would impact our economy and industry there likely would be another group of people that would call that solution completely unwarranted and a waste of money and resources.
This analogy only works if one is not willing to accept that climate change is a settled science.
October 25, 2011 04:24PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Those deniars have the right to believe as they wish. They can be as wrong as they want to be. They must also realize that there is no need for anyone to give their junk science and other beliefs any consideration.Quote
chicagocwright
For the sake of argument:
If you accepted the concept that climate change, human cause, etc is "unsettled science" then it is easier to understand the accusation that climate change is a "belief system" no different than someone who believes in whatever faith. It is similar to the arguments regarding Origin of Life. Creationists may argue that any given scientific theory is just as much a belief system as their own beliefs because the science is unsettled and it takes "faith" to accept.
Climate change is real science, UFO's are not. Both the UFO crowd and the anti-floridation camp belong in the conspiracy theorist category and are make great subjects for psychologists.Quote
Why is climate change different than UFOs? H20 Fluoridation?
Right. They need that feeling of power by "knowing" something that puts their oppressor in a bad light. Those not accepting climate change are doing so for psychological reasons, not scientific ones.Quote
Well, if someone argued that we need to build a massive Defense System to protect us from Aliens costing vast sums of money that would impact our economy and industry there likely would be another group of people that would call that solution completely unwarranted and a waste of money and resources.
This analogy only works if one is not willing to accept that climate change is a settled science.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2011 04:30PM by Dave.
October 25, 2011 06:39PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
chicagocwright
For the sake of argument:
If you accepted the concept that climate change, human cause, etc is "unsettled science" then it is easier to understand the accusation that climate change is a "belief system" no different than someone who believes in whatever faith. It is similar to the arguments regarding Origin of Life. Creationists may argue that any given scientific theory is just as much a belief system as their own beliefs because the science is unsettled and it takes "faith" to accept.
Why is climate change different than UFOs? H20 Fluoridation?
Well, if someone argued that we need to build a massive Defense System to protect us from Aliens costing vast sums of money that would impact our economy and industry there likely would be another group of people that would call that solution completely unwarranted and a waste of money and resources.
This analogy only works if one is not willing to accept that climate change is a settled science.
Your comments suggest to me that because individuals do not like the proposed political implications of the science, they have taken the rare, unfair, anti-intellectual and crudely unsophisticated approach of trying to destroy the messengers.
Regarding unsettled vs settled science, I think I take the view that no science is "settled". All science is subject to review, analysis, re-testing, and validation. Scientists continuously look for the exceptions and anomalies to push science forward. Eventually there will be a better theory of species evolution than Darwins, for example. It will not likely disprove Darwin, but will extend the understanding of life form development. Similar to Einstein's space-mass-motion extends Newtons observations. However, the current climate denialism is more reminiscent of Holocaust denying than the challenging of new ideas using traditional scientific methods--- climate warming criticism has been mostly pseudoscience propaganda that uses confusion, misassociation, misdirection, distraction by focus on irrelevant issues and character assassination to make "scientific arguments". The challenge is, if climate change is not occurring-- then, prove it by publishing the data to show that the overall thermal condition of the earth has not changed (and by the way, explain the polar melting and sea level changes).
It just seems like a lot of information is accumulating that is more consistent with warming than cooling or "non-warming".
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
October 26, 2011 11:27PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
chicagocwright
For the sake of argument:
If you accepted the concept that climate change, human cause, etc is "unsettled science" then it is easier to understand the accusation that climate change is a "belief system" no different than someone who believes in whatever faith. It is similar to the arguments regarding Origin of Life. Creationists may argue that any given scientific theory is just as much a belief system as their own beliefs because the science is unsettled and it takes "faith" to accept.
Why is climate change different than UFOs? H20 Fluoridation?
Well, if someone argued that we need to build a massive Defense System to protect us from Aliens costing vast sums of money that would impact our economy and industry there likely would be another group of people that would call that solution completely unwarranted and a waste of money and resources.
This analogy only works if one is not willing to accept that climate change is a settled science.
Your comments suggest to me that because individuals do not like the proposed political implications of the science, they have taken the rare, unfair, anti-intellectual and crudely unsophisticated approach of trying to destroy the messengers.
Regarding unsettled vs settled science, I think I take the view that no science is "settled". All science is subject to review, analysis, re-testing, and validation. Scientists continuously look for the exceptions and anomalies to push science forward. Eventually there will be a better theory of species evolution than Darwins, for example. It will not likely disprove Darwin, but will extend the understanding of life form development. Similar to Einstein's space-mass-motion extends Newtons observations. However, the current climate denialism is more reminiscent of Holocaust denying than the challenging of new ideas using traditional scientific methods--- climate warming criticism has been mostly pseudoscience propaganda that uses confusion, misassociation, misdirection, distraction by focus on irrelevant issues and character assassination to make "scientific arguments". The challenge is, if climate change is not occurring-- then, prove it by publishing the data to show that the overall thermal condition of the earth has not changed (and by the way, explain the polar melting and sea level changes).
While there are what one might call all-out-deniers, I think the vast majority of people accept the fact that the climate is changing. I think what's more under debate is what's causing the change? Are humans causing the change, and if so, do what degree?
But given that, I think what's driving the debate unfortunately is more cynical in nature. I think it's the possible political implications of the science why there's seems to be a whole cloth opposition from some well-funded groups to any notion that manmade activities has contributed to the change in climate in the past 150 years or so.
Unfortunately, what should be solely a scientific endeavor has become highly politicalized by both sides of the political spectrum. I think serious political opposition began currently with the development of the Kyoto Protocol and the restrictions to commerce that the protocol could impose on certain businesses. But it doesn't help to quell the debate when those who believe that the current climate change is mostly a manmade phenominum try to stop all debate of the subject by ridiculing those who are skeptics instead of trying to educate them by explaining better the science behind the climate change theories and addressing (and answering) the concerns raised by the skeptics.
October 27, 2011 05:25PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
If that were true, the main discussion would focus on solutions to the issue. Unfortunately, that is not the case. For example, there was not a lot of debate about what was causing polio epidemics, there was debate about what to do about it--- whether live or killed vaccine was best. Regarding global climate issues, the very basic issue of warming has not been accepted by most critics. Without that basic common understanding, there is very little room for science in the skeptical denier arguments because it really isn't a scientific discussion, it is a personal political argument that panders to anti-intellectualism.Quote
plawrence
While there are what one might call all-out-deniers, I think the vast majority of people accept the fact that the climate is changing. I think what's more under debate is what's causing the change? Are humans causing the change, and if so, do what degree?
Quote
But given that, I think what's driving the debate unfortunately is more cynical in nature. I think it's the possible political implications of the science why there's seems to be a whole cloth opposition from some well-funded groups to any notion that manmade activities has contributed to the change in climate in the past 150 years or so.
Unfortunately, what should be solely a scientific endeavor has become highly politicalized by both sides of the political spectrum. I think serious political opposition began currently with the development of the Kyoto Protocol and the restrictions to commerce that the protocol could impose on certain businesses. But it doesn't help to quell the debate when those who believe that the current climate change is mostly a manmade phenominum try to stop all debate of the subject by ridiculing those who are skeptics instead of trying to educate them by explaining better the science behind the climate change theories and addressing (and answering) the concerns raised by the skeptics.
One should be careful about assuming that opposite advocates have equally valid positions when the issue relates to empirically derived information. That results in no advance of knowledge-- opposite arguments cancel out.
It is easy to become distracted by the intoxicating concept of equality. We see that regularly in the evolution discussion where "intelligent design" is held up as something that deserves equal consideration with the current theory of evolution. It occurs at times with the analysis of German policies in WW II (when the Holocaust deniers want to be represented). "Equality of explanations" is illusory sometimes. It is not "equality" and objective to give equal weight to every arbitrary wacko idea driven more by personal prejudice, bias, and a religo-political agenda than by the scientific method. So far, most of the objection to climate research seems to be driven by delusional personal political ideas, not by appropriate curiosity about studying a puzzling scientific issue. I recall the aversion to studying HIV and AIDS because of the view that it was God's will that the Sodomites were to be punished and nature should take its course. There should not be objection based on political orientation or religion to climate studies and there should certainly not be any objection because someone or some corporation is afraid what the research will show.
It may well turn out that climate change is due to some other factor ( change in argon concentration, methane levels, sunspots, magnetism, etc). However, the current theory provides a strong and convincing framework that should be accepted until a better explanation is proposed. It is not about "belief" or "disbelief: in global warming, it is about "belief" in the scientific method.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2011 05:27PM by Frank Furter.
October 27, 2011 07:12PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
All well said. That's why I don't even attempt to discuss this with the deniers. If they don't want to be ridiculed they should come up with better arguments.Quote
Frank Furter
...Regarding global climate issues, the very basic issue of warming has not been accepted by most critics. Without that basic common understanding, there is very little room for science in the skeptical denier arguments because it really isn't a scientific discussion, it is a personal political argument that panders to anti-intellectualism....
October 25, 2011 04:33PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
It has come to a head because we are now experiencing the effects of climate change. Science talked about this for a long time, but were ignored. Now that their predictions are coming true, the conspiracy theorists have gone into full combat mode.Quote
Frank Furter
But, the concept of CO2 and global warming has been kicked around for close to 100 years. Why is it now such a cause celebre and why is this particular science suddenly populated by many fraudulent and deceptive scientists (according to the popular charge)? Did climate science suddenly attract a bunch of ex-convicts or former wall street money managers who needed new careers? And, finally, why isn't other recent scientific research (for example, planets in other solar systems, string theory, importance of dietary fiber) subject to the same conspiracy accusations? I don't recall this level of hysteria with water fluoridation or UFO sightings-- both issues that seemed to bring the conspiracy wackos out of the woodwork in the 60's.
October 21, 2011 07:31PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Yes. Many deniars have questioned the temperature measurements.Quote
traildad
Was the debate ever about real changes in temps?
There is no doubt the cause, or at minimal exacerbation, is anthropogenic. Just do the math; for every gallon of gasoline consumed in an internal combustion engine produces 19 POUNDS of CO2 - a well known, and proven, greenhouse gas. Now multiply that 19 pounds by the 3,751 MILLION gallons of gasoline used daily in just the USA alone. If you want the world, you can safely triple that number. That give you how many tons of pollution we are adding to our atmosphere on a daily basis. Now multiply that by 50 years or so to get a pretty good idea of what human activity has done. And that's just a small part. You still need to add in all the coal being burnt and industrial consumption of fossil fuels. Put all together and most scientists will admit that humans are the cause of this particular climate change.Quote
I think the real debate is about the claim that man causes the change.
Not in the speed in which the temps, and CO2 content, has changed this time.Quote
Temps can go up and down as shown by the coming and going of the ice ages....
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 21, 2011 11:24PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 190 |
I can understand that world wide averages from the 50's might be questioned. Does the major new analysis prove that temps taken in the 50's are correct? I would bet that if you followed a family tree so to speak of climatologists you would be able to trace them all back to a few college professors. On top of that, who studies to be a climatologist? Mostly people that already believe that the environment is being harmed by man and must be saved. It is a self selecting group whose natural inclination is to believe in man caused global environmental disaster. Whenever they analyze a statistical study they can't help but see the man caused theory as the "pattern" and other data as random noise. Whenever they have to fill in the gaps with educated guesses they always guess "man made". In the early days, how many studies that did not confirm man made causes were followed up with more funding and studies. If your study finds a problem to be solved, you are more likely to get money to continue your research which leads to a feedback loop of sorts that keep reinforcing the same point of view.
As far as speed of change, is that compared to the climate records form a couple million years ago, or 50 thousand years back, or 10 thousand years back, or what?
If it is all proven, why aren't current conditions living up to the hype?
As far as speed of change, is that compared to the climate records form a couple million years ago, or 50 thousand years back, or 10 thousand years back, or what?
If it is all proven, why aren't current conditions living up to the hype?
October 22, 2011 06:46AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 24, 2011 10:27AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 78 |
Quote
Dave
The only hype is coming from the deniars. Like I said, a basic science course at local junior college would be helpful.Quote
traildad
.... If it is all proven, why aren't current conditions living up to the hype?
So, If you question somebody on the liberal left, you are a deniar, but if you are on the left and question something, you are a truth seeker. Got it thanks!!!!
October 24, 2011 04:34PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
That's absurd. Political stance has nothing at all to do with this. Science does. Several here have shown a complete ignorance of science and how it works. I question all sides on everything and I let the facts inform me as to where I should stand on any issue. I'd love to discuss the facts about climate change with anyone that is knowledgeable on the topic. I am uninterested in debating junk science and political lies.Quote
telfair ave
So, If you question somebody on the liberal left, you are a deniar,......
October 22, 2011 08:33AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Quote
traildad
I would bet that if you followed a family tree so to speak of climatologists you would be able to trace them all back to a few college professors. On top of that, who studies to be a climatologist? Mostly people that already believe that the environment is being harmed by man and must be saved. It is a self selecting group whose natural inclination is to believe in man caused global environmental disaster. Whenever they analyze a statistical study they can't help but see the man caused theory as the "pattern" and other data as random noise. Whenever they have to fill in the gaps with educated guesses they always guess "man made". In the early days, how many studies that did not confirm man made causes were followed up with more funding and studies. If your study finds a problem to be solved, you are more likely to get money to continue your research which leads to a feedback loop of sorts that keep reinforcing the same point of view.
Limbaughian ravings.
Even this partial list of people that have contributed to the field shows that their backgrounds are highly varied and that the modern history of climatology goes back much further (see, also, http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?1,48074) than you imagine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
October 22, 2011 06:13PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,876 |
Traildad,
Can you give me the reference to the supernova article? I'm an amateur astronomer and would like to see the full content of the article. Supernovas stars are indeed stars which have exploded most of their outer shells into space. While there are some remnants of a core left over it is insignificant compared to that which is part of the explosion. Eons after the exposion some of the expoded material may come together again to form a new gas cloud capable of eventual new star formation but that can hardly deny the original explosion. The life cycles of stars can take many forms but one thing is certain. They keep reforming new ones out of the ashes of old ones, each successive time producing more complex elements in the periodic table. Our own Sun is either a third of fourth genration star. Anyway, I would appreciate the exact reference. Thank you.
Can you give me the reference to the supernova article? I'm an amateur astronomer and would like to see the full content of the article. Supernovas stars are indeed stars which have exploded most of their outer shells into space. While there are some remnants of a core left over it is insignificant compared to that which is part of the explosion. Eons after the exposion some of the expoded material may come together again to form a new gas cloud capable of eventual new star formation but that can hardly deny the original explosion. The life cycles of stars can take many forms but one thing is certain. They keep reforming new ones out of the ashes of old ones, each successive time producing more complex elements in the periodic table. Our own Sun is either a third of fourth genration star. Anyway, I would appreciate the exact reference. Thank you.
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 28, 2011 07:38AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 165 |
Just curious.
How many of you folks:
1) Drive non-fossil fuel vehicles
2) Are off of the grid, using wind or solar power (or other) for your domicile?
3) Limit driving trips to Yosemite, to say once a year
4) How far away are you from Yosemite? I am curious about this because I am envious that many of you get there so often.
How many of you folks:
1) Drive non-fossil fuel vehicles
2) Are off of the grid, using wind or solar power (or other) for your domicile?
3) Limit driving trips to Yosemite, to say once a year
4) How far away are you from Yosemite? I am curious about this because I am envious that many of you get there so often.
October 28, 2011 10:31AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
snorkus
Just curious.
How many of you folks:
1) Drive non-fossil fuel vehicles
2) Are off of the grid, using wind or solar power (or other) for your domicile?
3) Limit driving trips to Yosemite, to say once a year
4) How far away are you from Yosemite? I am curious about this because I am envious that many of you get there so often.
These sound more like rhetorical questions intended to be an argument against climate change concerns. If that is the case, perhaps you should be more direct in the point you are trying to make.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 28, 2011 01:35PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 165 |
I don't think that they are rhetorical questions for the discussion in this thread. If we are causing the climate changes, there are ways to alter the rate of change.Quote
Frank Furter
These sound more like rhetorical questions intended to be an argument against climate change concerns. If that is the case, perhaps you should be more direct in the point you are trying to make.
Also, I love coming to this forum, hearing differing points of view, as well as reading about Yosemite and its different areas. People have always been helpful with regards to destinations, hikes, campgrounds, etc.
Living in the Los Angeles area and having a family doing different things(school, youth sports), I don't get to Yosemite and the High Sierra as much as I would like.
October 28, 2011 02:39PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
A poll is the best way to find out specific information about travel preferences or habits. I'm not sure I understand why you want to discuss travel to Yosemite in a thread dealing with climate change, however.Quote
snorkus
I don't think that they are rhetorical questions for the discussion in this thread. If we are causing the climate changes, there are ways to alter the rate of change.Quote
Frank Furter
These sound more like rhetorical questions intended to be an argument against climate change concerns. If that is the case, perhaps you should be more direct in the point you are trying to make.
Also, I love coming to this forum, hearing differing points of view, as well as reading about Yosemite and its different areas. People have always been helpful with regards to destinations, hikes, campgrounds, etc.
Living in the Los Angeles area and having a family doing different things(school, youth sports), I don't get to Yosemite and the High Sierra as much as I would like.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 28, 2011 02:20PM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 78 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
snorkus
Just curious.
How many of you folks:
1) Drive non-fossil fuel vehicles
2) Are off of the grid, using wind or solar power (or other) for your domicile?
3) Limit driving trips to Yosemite, to say once a year
4) How far away are you from Yosemite? I am curious about this because I am envious that many of you get there so often.
These sound more like rhetorical questions intended to be an argument against climate change concerns. If that is the case, perhaps you should be more direct in the point you are trying to make.
Sounds pretty direct to me. Are you telling me you don't understand the point he was trying to make, or most don't want to answer the question because of it will put them in hypocritcal positions.
The one point is the solar energy point SNorkus brought up, that is the biggest waste and least green of just about any energy system.
October 28, 2011 02:35PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Then explain exactly what is intended by the questions in the context of a climate change discussion? They could be a informational "poll"-- if so, they should be put into poll form. If they are wedge questions intended to suggest that because we all use fossil fuel we cannot complain, the questions are rhetorical and disingenuous. However, since it is not clear, I have asked for clarification.Quote
telfair ave
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
snorkus
Just curious.
How many of you folks:
1) Drive non-fossil fuel vehicles
2) Are off of the grid, using wind or solar power (or other) for your domicile?
3) Limit driving trips to Yosemite, to say once a year
4) How far away are you from Yosemite? I am curious about this because I am envious that many of you get there so often.
These sound more like rhetorical questions intended to be an argument against climate change concerns. If that is the case, perhaps you should be more direct in the point you are trying to make.
Sounds pretty direct to me.
You did not read my statement because if you did, you would understand that I specifically asked for clarification.Quote
Are you telling me you don't understand the point he was trying to make, or most don't want to answer the question because of it will put them in hypocritcal positions.
That may be your misplaced conclusion, however, there is nothing directly in the questions Snorkus presented to directly lead to that conclusion. Snorkus' post is ambiguous and as such I asked for a clearer statement.Quote
The one point is the solar energy point SNorkus brought up, that is the biggest waste and least green of just about any energy system.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 28, 2011 04:24PM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 78 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Then explain exactly what is intended by the questions in the context of a climate change discussion? They could be a informational "poll"-- if so, they should be put into poll form. If they are wedge questions intended to suggest that because we all use fossil fuel we cannot complain, the questions are rhetorical and disingenuous. However, since it is not clear, I have asked for clarification.Quote
telfair ave
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
snorkus
Just curious.
How many of you folks:
1) Drive non-fossil fuel vehicles
2) Are off of the grid, using wind or solar power (or other) for your domicile?
3) Limit driving trips to Yosemite, to say once a year
4) How far away are you from Yosemite? I am curious about this because I am envious that many of you get there so often.
These sound more like rhetorical questions intended to be an argument against climate change concerns. If that is the case, perhaps you should be more direct in the point you are trying to make.
Sounds pretty direct to me.You did not read my statement because if you did, you would understand that I specifically asked for clarification.Quote
Are you telling me you don't understand the point he was trying to make, or most don't want to answer the question because of it will put them in hypocritcal positions.That may be your misplaced conclusion, however, there is nothing directly in the questions Snorkus presented to directly lead to that conclusion. Snorkus' post is ambiguous and as such I asked for a clearer statement.Quote
The one point is the solar energy point SNorkus brought up, that is the biggest waste and least green of just about any energy system.
I won't speak for Snorkus and what is intention is, but they are straight forward questions, but obviously make you uncomfortable to answer them.
They are not "wedge" questions, they are real questions of what you actually believe and/or want others to believe. If you believe that what we are doing is a disaster to the environment, then don't do it. Don't drive a car if you actually believe that for every gallon of gas puts in 20 pounds of pollutants in the air. I would bet that 99.99% of those posting on here live very nice lifestyles that allow them to take multiple trips up to Yosemite while driving in a car that is destroying the planet.
I guarantee you taqhqt nobody will answer those questions because we all know what the answers are already. If you felt like what you are doing is a major pollutant, then you wouldn't be doing it, but all of you are. But you want us to believe a certain way and put down others that are questioning the motives of of the radical left. The one poster refers to the other side as the deniars. No, they have honest questions and come up with different conclusions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2011 04:28PM by telfair ave.
October 28, 2011 05:20PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
Tefair aveQuote
Frank FurterThat may be your misplaced conclusion, however, there is nothing directly in the questions Snorkus presented to directly lead to that conclusion. Snorkus' post is ambiguous and as such I asked for a clearer statement.Quote
The one point is the solar energy point SNorkus brought up, that is the biggest waste and least green of just about any energy system.
I won't speak for Snorkus and what is intention is,
Except, as noted above, that is exactly what you did.
Quote
tefair ave
but they are straight forward questions, but obviously make you uncomfortable to answer them.
They are not "wedge" questions, they are real questions of what you actually believe and/or want others to believe. If you believe that what we are doing is a disaster to the environment, then don't do it. Don't drive a car if you actually believe that for every gallon of gas puts in 20 pounds of pollutants in the air. I would bet that 99.99% of those posting on here live very nice lifestyles that allow them to take multiple trips up to Yosemite while driving in a car that is destroying the planet. I guarantee you taqhqt nobody will answer those questions because we all know what the answers are already. If you felt like what you are doing is a major pollutant, then you wouldn't be doing it, but all of you are. But you want us to believe a certain way and put down others that are questioning the motives of of the radical left. The one poster refers to the other side as the deniars. No, they have honest questions and come up with different conclusions.
Typically, and predictably, you have presented a confused, rambling, and tedious rant that does not reflect well on your apparent political position or scientific understanding. Try to focus on one specific issue or argument and make your best case with supporting evidence.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
October 28, 2011 06:10PM | Admin Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 17,050 |
October 28, 2011 07:46PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
No one is uncomfortable answering those questions. Everyone recognizes they are bogus though.Quote
telfair ave
I won't speak for Snorkus and what is intention is, but they are straight forward questions, but obviously make you uncomfortable to answer them.
You just proved they were wedge questions.Quote
They are not "wedge" questions, they are real questions of what you actually believe and/or want others to believe.
What humanity is doing is a disaster to the environment.Quote
If you believe that what we are doing is a disaster to the environment, then don't do it.
That's a fact, not a belief.Quote
Don't drive a car if you actually believe that for every gallon of gas puts in 20 pounds of pollutants in the air.
There is a choice to be made here; you can either listen to the oil companies and be blissful through ignorance, or you can use that brain that evolution gave you and do your share to help stop the runaway pollution. What you, and others here, are doing is an ad hominem. Instead of an intelligent discussion of the facts you are trying to find something wrong with the people that disagree with you. It's a sophomoric ploy that never works and only shows the weakness of your argument - or lack of argument. Try addressing the facts, not the person.
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 29, 2011 03:52AM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 165 |
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 29, 2011 08:17AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 78 |
Quote
Dave
No one is uncomfortable answering those questions. Everyone recognizes they are bogus though.Quote
telfair ave
I won't speak for Snorkus and what is intention is, but they are straight forward questions, but obviously make you uncomfortable to answer them.You just proved they were wedge questions.Quote
They are not "wedge" questions, they are real questions of what you actually believe and/or want others to believe.What humanity is doing is a disaster to the environment.Quote
If you believe that what we are doing is a disaster to the environment, then don't do it.That's a fact, not a belief.Quote
Don't drive a car if you actually believe that for every gallon of gas puts in 20 pounds of pollutants in the air.
There is a choice to be made here; you can either listen to the oil companies and be blissful through ignorance, or you can use that brain that evolution gave you and do your share to help stop the runaway pollution. What you, and others here, are doing is an ad hominem. Instead of an intelligent discussion of the facts you are trying to find something wrong with the people that disagree with you. It's a sophomoric ploy that never works and only shows the weakness of your argument - or lack of argument. Try addressing the facts, not the person.
What choice are you and others on here making? The choice would be clear in Snorkus' questions, get off the grid and stop driving bio fueled vehicles. Don't drive up to Yosemite, ride your bike up there. If you believe that you are making 20 pounts of polluton for every gallon of gas you use, then don't do it. Simple, but that is the whole side that you ignore. But, somehow, these are Ad Hominum attacks? No they are not, that is putting up, or shutting up, fairly simple. I have not heard one person on here say that they have given up on driving a car. Why is that? All everyone on here is do Ad Hominum attacks (in a corporate sense) on oil companies, people on the right, christians etc.
October 29, 2011 08:36AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
October 30, 2011 08:11AM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
Dave
Why do we have to conform to his views of what we have to do?Quote
telfair ave
The choice would be clear in Snorkus' questions.....
The issue, however poorly expressed, appears to be that using fossil fuel invalidates any "right to" criticism of the consequences of CO2 accumulation in the environment. That argument presumes that the choice to use fossil fuel is entirely independent of economic or practical factors and is solely a personal philosophical, political or religious choice. Of course, that is not the situation. However, for those that are interested, this argument is a typical maneuver to convert the discussion of science into a religious or political discussion of personal choice under the ill-informed assumption that all social and personal behavior is compelled by free will. Not only is it a typical libertarian misconception, It has a "let them eat cake" aspect to it and reflects a thought process driven by political and religious bigotry, lack of insight and such ignorance to suggest not lack of information but the unwillingness to learn.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 31, 2011 09:39AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 78 |
Quote
Dave
Many.Quote
telfair ave
What choice are you and others on here making?Why do we have to conform to his views of what we have to do?Quote
The choice would be clear in Snorkus' questions.....
I don't think he was putting forth any views, he was asking a question or 2. Nobody is asking you to conform to any views. Just live up to your beliefs is better. How is that? It seems like the answers are obvious, nobody on here wants to do with the convenience of driving a car, being on the internet, taking road trips as often as possible to Yosemite and other places, but rail against those who provide the means and methods of allowing your convenience.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2011 09:40AM by telfair ave.
October 31, 2011 10:31AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Come on, do you really believe I am naive enough to fall for that? He was stating his views in the form of loaded questions.Quote
telfair ave
I don't think he was putting forth any views, he was asking a question or 2.
He was.Quote
Nobody is asking you to conform to any views.
Not any better.Quote
Just live up to your beliefs is better. How is that?
They were obviously attacks on those that acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. His questions were personal attacks and not intended for any rational discussion.Quote
It seems like the answers are obvious.....
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 31, 2011 10:52AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 78 |
So, you don't want to answer the questions, but just attack those that do. Got it. What personal attacks were in those questions? They are questions, either answer them or don't.Quote
Dave
Come on, do you really believe I am naive enough to fall for that? He was stating his views in the form of loaded questions.Quote
telfair ave
I don't think he was putting forth any views, he was asking a question or 2.He was.Quote
Nobody is asking you to conform to any views.Not any better.Quote
Just live up to your beliefs is better. How is that?They were obviously attacks on those that acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. His questions were personal attacks and not intended for any rational discussion.Quote
It seems like the answers are obvious.....
Do you think that I am naive enough to fall for your line of reasoning? You are cahnging the subject and attacking somebody for asking a very general question, but it is too tough a question for you to answer, so you attack instead.
October 31, 2011 12:24PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 31, 2011 03:18PM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Some places back east got their earliest snowfall since 1952, the Denver area had that huge snowfall and it is supposed to snow in again in Yosemite this week. Last winter was one of the worst in decades in some parts of the country. This might be one reason that not all people believe in Global Warming.
October 31, 2011 03:39PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
Quote
parklover
Some places back east got their earliest snowfall since 1952, the Denver area had that huge snowfall and it is supposed to snow in again in Yosemite this week. Last winter was one of the worst in decades in some parts of the country. This might be one reason that not all people believe in Global Warming.
Climate vs weather. The cooler North American weather last year was actually a bad event because there was hotter than normal arctic air that prevented the normal northerly shift (essentially winter cool air masses which are normally more northerly were pushed south).
You may want to browse the following list of arguments against the climate change hypothesis:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics#Types%20of%20Argument
BTW, if we want to play the weather argument, it has been warmer in Montana than it has been in decades. Usually have snow by this date but have been having temps in the 70's. The overall world temperature cannot be judged by isolated temperature measurement or even a few years of data.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 31, 2011 05:27PM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
parklover
Some places back east got their earliest snowfall since 1952, the Denver area had that huge snowfall and it is supposed to snow in again in Yosemite this week. Last winter was one of the worst in decades in some parts of the country. This might be one reason that not all people believe in Global Warming.
Climate vs weather. The cooler North American weather last year was actually a bad event because there was hotter than normal arctic air that prevented the normal northerly shift (essentially winter cool air masses which are normally more northerly were pushed south).
You may want to browse the following list of arguments against the climate change hypothesis:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics#Types%20of%20Argument
BTW, if we want to play the weather argument, it has been warmer in Montana than it has been in decades. Usually have snow by this date but have been having temps in the 70's. The overall world temperature cannot be judged by isolated temperature measurement or even a few years of data.
My statement was not to be taken as an argument and nor do I want to get into one. It was just a comment why people might not believe in Global Warming. In fact, there was a paper some time ago, about a study that showed that this pattern might be indicative of the coming of an Ice Age. Again, I am not presenting this as my thoughts about the subject. I don't feel like I have studied the subject enough to have a constructive conversation in public either for or against Global Warming. Although I took a course decades ago, Meteorology is not my field of science. I will take a look at that website when I have a chance for it is always interesting to read comments on both sides of an issue.
October 31, 2011 07:15PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
Then you are admitting those people refuse to understand climate change because they are too stupid to know the difference between weather and climate? It's not difficult to understand that more heat, more energy, in the atmosphere is going to cause bigger, and wetter, storms. Higher global temps does not mean drier weather.Quote
parklover
My statement was not to be taken as an argument and nor do I want to get into one. It was just a comment why people might not believe in Global Warming.
OK, the ice caps melt during an Ice Age?Quote
In fact, there was a paper some time ago, about a study that showed that this pattern might be indicative of the coming of an Ice Age.
One of the noisiest skeptics of climate change just changed his mind. Here's the story. The FACTS changed his mind..... or those funding him - the Koch brothers - allowed him to "change" his mind. They won't let him say it's human caused though. That might hurt their oil business. Funny thing that; all the anti climate change people are paid for by the oil companies.Quote
Again, I am not presenting this as my thoughts about the subject. I don't feel like I have studied the subject enough to have a constructive conversation in public either for or against Global Warming. Although I took a course decades ago, Meteorology is not my field of science. I will take a look at that website when I have a chance for it is always interesting to read comments on both sides of an issue.
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 31, 2011 08:23PM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Quote
Dave
Then you are admitting those people refuse to understand climate change because they are too stupid to know the difference between weather and climate? It's not difficult to understand that more heat, more energy, in the atmosphere is going to cause bigger, and wetter, storms. Higher global temps does not mean drier weather.Quote
parklover
My statement was not to be taken as an argument and nor do I want to get into one. It was just a comment why people might not believe in Global Warming.OK, the ice caps melt during an Ice Age?Quote
In fact, there was a paper some time ago, about a study that showed that this pattern might be indicative of the coming of an Ice Age.One of the noisiest skeptics of climate change just changed his mind. Here's the story. The FACTS changed his mind..... or those funding him - the Koch brothers - allowed him to "change" his mind. They won't let him say it's human caused though. That might hurt their oil business. Funny thing that; all the anti climate change people are paid for by the oil companies.Quote
Again, I am not presenting this as my thoughts about the subject. I don't feel like I have studied the subject enough to have a constructive conversation in public either for or against Global Warming. Although I took a course decades ago, Meteorology is not my field of science. I will take a look at that website when I have a chance for it is always interesting to read comments on both sides of an issue.
Dave please quit trying to put words into people's mouths or trying to twist what they are saying. I was not making any statements about people's intelligence. I was just stating what others have said and was not giving any opinion on what was said or even if I agreed or disagreed. Please read what I said and take it as such and not make it into something else. This is why people stop posting on sites.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2011 08:29PM by parklover.
October 31, 2011 09:58PM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
They stop posting because they don't like being treated the way they treat others.Quote
parklover
Dave please quit trying to put words into people's mouths or trying to twist what they are saying. I was not making any statements about people's intelligence. I was just stating what others have said and was not giving any opinion on what was said or even if I agreed or disagreed. Please read what I said and take it as such and not make it into something else. This is why people stop posting on sites.
"Others" can say anything they want, but without a direct quote what "others" have to say is meaningless. You should be directing the attack at the person that started the personal attacks with the loaded questions. I've been around the block a few times and I know a veiled attack.....
Never mind.
Got any facts to discuss? I brought up a few facts but they were ignored. Why would the ice caps melt if we are entering an ice age. That makes no sense. Why would temps rise at record rates if we are entering an ice age? It makes no sense. Why would one of the most vocal anti climate change scientists change his mind and acknowledge the climate is changing? The facts changed his mind. The facts are that humans have added an unprecedented amount of CO2 to the atmosphere in a short period of time. We increased the atmospheric CO2 by 100ppm in 120 years. Sure, nature has done this before but it took 5000 to 20000 years Yes, the data is correct and has been verified by the same findings in varved clays, tree rings, ice cores, marine sediment cores, fossil plants and fossil marine life, rocks, etc. We know that the extra is not natural by looking at the carbon in the CO2, specifically the ratio of the isotopes C13 to C12. Natural CO2 has a content of C13 content of just over 1.1%. The CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels produces a CO2 with slightly less than 1% C13. The natural CO2 in the atmosphere has remained steady. The increase is in the CO2 with the lower C13 content.
Those are the facts. I don't care what "others" say. They can say anything they want but it cannot change those facts. Those are not beliefs, but facts. It's not a belief that burning one gallon of gasoline produces 19 pounds of CO2. It's a fact. Those facts have absolutely nothing to do with how many times a year someone visits Yosemite.
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real November 01, 2011 07:46AM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Quote
Dave
They stop posting because they don't like being treated the way they treat others.Quote
parklover
Dave please quit trying to put words into people's mouths or trying to twist what they are saying. I was not making any statements about people's intelligence. I was just stating what others have said and was not giving any opinion on what was said or even if I agreed or disagreed. Please read what I said and take it as such and not make it into something else. This is why people stop posting on sites.
"Others" can say anything they want, but without a direct quote what "others" have to say is meaningless. You should be directing the attack at the person that started the personal attacks with the loaded questions. I've been around the block a few times and I know a veiled attack.....
Never mind.
Excuse me Dave, You were/are attacking me and putting meanings to what I said/say that are not correct and I was pointing it out and now you are doing the same thing again. I was being very clear that you were attributing a statement to me about me thinking that people are stupid and I did not say that. My comment that I agree with Plawrence and Frank Furter was not directed specifically to you but to everyone that is not respectful to others, so that is not a "veiled attack" on you. Believe me, if I have something to say to some one I am pretty direct just like I am being now. I can tell by your posts that Global Warming is a very important subject to you and the best way to get people to understand the issues is not to do what you have been doing not only to me but to others. Just because I have not posted my personal thoughts on GW does not mean that I agree or disagree with what you are saying but the fact that I don't feel that I have enough information to get into a discussion at this time. Maybe I do agree with you but your approach would make me less likely to back you up on the issue. Like you said "never mind" which should mean that this part of this thread should be put to rest. To continue going back and forth is not only making me uncomfortable but also others that are reading this. I am going to put it to rest and I hope that you will too.
November 01, 2011 09:03AM | Registered: 14 years ago Posts: 1,634 |
October 31, 2011 07:47PM | Moderator Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 1,942 |
IQuote
parklover
My statement was not to be taken as an argument and nor do I want to get into one. It was just a comment why people might not believe in Global Warming.
We can have a discussion without acrimony. Do most people in this country still "believe" the earth as flat, even though it appears that way and we live our lifes, for the most part, as though the earth is flat? Common sense is the set of prejudices developed by age 18 (Einstein) but it can be overcome through adequate education I suspect. Most solely scientific controversy, if it can be kept separate from political or philosophical discussion, can result in a consensus.
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
October 31, 2011 09:22PM | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 4,173 |
|
Re: Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real October 31, 2011 09:51PM | Registered: 12 years ago Posts: 1,976 |
Quote
plawrence
Quote
Frank Furter
We can have a discussion without acrimony
I think most who have posted on this thread are trying to do so, but one person in particular doesn't seem able to post responses without being derogatory, condescending, or insulting in his remarks.
I agree with both of you. Friendly discussion, even if you don't agree with someone, is the way to go.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
