Page 138 of 161 FirstFirst ... 3888128134135136137138139140141142148 ... LastLast
Results 3,426 to 3,450 of 4001
  1. #3426
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Good question as I do not believe this has been accurately determined. I am aware of the papers on this subject.
    What do you believe is the range? What are other possible sources for the CO2 increase?

    What do you believe to be the affect of that CO2 on the climate system?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  2. #3427
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Also, you failed to elaborate on CO2's affect on the climate and what you meant by it not being a driver.
    The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

    Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.
    Poptech is offline

  3. #3428
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  4. #3429
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
    Oregon between the cascade and coastal mountains would be like Germany.

    Oh wait...

    It already is...
    Wild Cobra is offline

  5. #3430
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Using Hansen's formula in TAR (or was it SAR?), this is what CO2 looks like according to the IPCC AR4:





    edit add:

    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-02-2012 at 05:43 AM.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  6. #3431
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Would the climate cycles as we know them occur without changes in CO2? What would the atmospheric temperature be like without any CO2 in the atmosphere?
    Without any CO2?

    We would never know, and life as we know it on this planet wouldn't exist.

    As for climate temperatures... There are several periods of time the climate has been hotter with lower levels of CO2:



    not only do we have at least four periods of time in the last 12,000 years that are warmer, we have warmer at about 128,000, 238,000, 322,000, and 408,000 years ago.

    Did we have this many civilizations rise and fall, creating SUV's to pollute the earth?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  7. #3432
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Without any CO2?

    We would never know, and life as we know it on this planet wouldn't exist.

    As for climate temperatures... There are several periods of time the climate has been hotter with lower levels of CO2:



    not only do we have at least four periods of time in the last 12,000 years that are warmer, we have warmer at about 128,000, 238,000, 322,000, and 408,000 years ago.

    Did we have this many civilizations rise and fall, creating SUV's to pollute the earth?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  8. #3433
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Hmm wonder where i got the idea from. Wait maybe it was:



    or

    I have not given up on anything. Are you denying that the U.S.S.R. was a socialist state? The word "Republic" was used to show they were not a monarchy and had a socialist cons ution.
    or

    Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?
    or

    The justification for the image is based on the organization's anti-capitalist views which can accurately be represented as socialist/communist. Are you denying the organization holds anti-capitalist views?
    or

    Anti-capitalists can accurately be referred to as communists, thus the image. Your feelings about these facts does not change them.
    Yeah why would anyone think that you equate 'anti-capitalism,' 'socialism,' and 'communism?'

    Also considering your standards then the vast majority of Americans support some facet of a mixed economy, which means they can be labeled as anti-capitalist, which means they can be labeled as socialist/communist. Most Americans for over a century merit the hammer and sickle treatment. Lovely.

    You certainly like calling me dishonest. You claim no relevance to the Red Scare yet you choose the Soviet sickle and hammer and then try and dissemble like this. Quit being an intellectual coward.

    As for you not believing i would vote for the Libertarian Party, i really don't care. As I stated I support the notion of a third party not the parties particular platform. I try giving political capital to third parties because I think our political system lacks plurality. i want more voices to be heard so I vote for the other voices trying to be heard.

    I often find libertarian to be the only alternative option. Unfortunately I all too often find only the existing two parties and turn in an unfilled ballot.

    As for your question about what their list includes in total in regards your list the answer is obvious. I am not going to play your ty psuedo-Socratic method game. Call it avoidance all you want. Try to find a person other than yourself who cares. If you have a point then make one.

    I also never claimed you made an argument based on Buckley. I am just saying that the most respected conservative intellectual of the twentieth century found your tactics reprehensible. The point in that is its a widely held view across the political spectrum that the Red Scare tactic is lame.

    As for being an arbiter. Its that you extend your standard of what you think to how everyone else should think or behave. Are you really that dumb? Why is your list the standard by which their list should be judged? Because you 'think' something just lacks vehemence and credibility.

    Their comments from that blog post indicates why they don't want their papers on your list. I am not going to play your ty attempt at socratic method. they specifically state that they should not be used to conclude AGW skepticism. They went so far in some of those papers to anticipate your kind and made disclaimers of their own.

    I also have no idea when his particular association with the energy lobby began. What we know is that he does have one and despite your claims to the contrary it does display a conflict of interest. As does his work with the coal industry. Skepticism is merited in my view.

    You can sit there and claim cognitive dissonance all you want. However i see no contradiction in skepticism towards behavior that was exhibited with the tobacco industry and their scientists 50 years ago.

    I know its a stretch but maybe people advocate for people that pay them.
    Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-02-2012 at 06:40 AM.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  9. #3434
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Oh and I want to make one more comment. Asking loaded questions that affirm what you consider part of your argument is fallacious. You do it again and again and then act as if its significant when you do not get an answer.

    When you lack knowledge and are trying to obtain it that is one thing. At that point it makes sense to point to the evasiveness as it demonstrates a desire to hide something.

    Thats not the game you are playing here. You are asking questions that if answered you can crow 'see I told you so.' Its a weak tactic and shows nothing other than the need to appeal to dramatics.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  10. #3435
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    No. It makes it my opinion.

    You might think my opinion is incorrect.

    I happen to think I have a fair, logical reason for my opinion.
    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.
    I did not state, or imply truth was irrelevant.

    Did I miss something?

    Once again, I want to know how you got to

    "using this argument the truth is irrelevant"...

    From what I said.

    Either you can explain it clearly, or you cannot. I do not see the connection.
    That quote does not state that your statement meant that truth would be irrelevant.
    So when you said:

    Using this argument the truth is irrelevant.


    What exactly did you mean by "this argument"?
    A hypothetical exercise.
    Really?

    Once again, please step me through this hypothical exercise.

    If you can't, I will have to assume this was a strawman argument, as I did not state, nor intend to imply that truth is irrelevant, either in my statement, or in anything that could be "hypothetically exercised" from my statement.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2012 at 07:34 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3436
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    There is no irony as the numerical total of the list is factual. No argument is made that this is more or less than something else as you did with your argumentum ad populum.
    That is not an argumentum ad populum.

    I did not imply, nor intend to imply, that one theory or another is more valid because more people believed it.

    That is your implication. Not mine.

    I am, as I have stated, trying to see a wider picture.

    This also got ignored.

    You have made a claim. It is your burden of proof.

    Please demonstrate how this is an argumentum ad populem.

    I would suggest using Nizkor's list, as it is fairly clear, but feel free to supply some other format.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html


    If you cannot demonstrate that this is an argumentum ad populum, you have constructed a strawman argument.

    Your claim, your burden of proof.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #3437
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Without any CO2?

    We would never know, and life as we know it on this planet wouldn't exist.

    As for climate temperatures... There are several periods of time the climate has been hotter with lower levels of CO2:



    not only do we have at least four periods of time in the last 12,000 years that are warmer, we have warmer at about 128,000, 238,000, 322,000, and 408,000 years ago.

    Did we have this many civilizations rise and fall, creating SUV's to pollute the earth?
    Do scientists claim that natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist?

    No one here has ever claimed that is the case, either, as far as I know.

    What you have here is, in essence, an appeal to ridicule.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html

    One could alternately construe it as a strawman argument, since there are no scientists to my knowledge that claim natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist.

    Which are you going for, appeal to ridicule or strawman? Please elaborate.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #3438
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Oh and I want to make one more comment. Asking loaded questions that affirm what you consider part of your argument is fallacious. You do it again and again and then act as if its significant when you do not get an answer.

    When you lack knowledge and are trying to obtain it that is one thing. At that point it makes sense to point to the evasiveness as it demonstrates a desire to hide something.

    Thats not the game you are playing here. You are asking questions that if answered you can crow 'see I told you so.' Its a weak tactic and shows nothing other than the need to appeal to dramatics.
    It is perfectly fair to ask loaded questions, and it is significant when they are not honestly answered.

    The trick is to find your own loaded questions.

    If an argument is weak, that kind of thing will find it out.

    However, he is evasive, and does not admit that anyone might make a good point, and accedes as little as possible. That is not a hallmark of intellectual honesty, but one of bias, if your goal is to get at what is true. If you can't accede someone you disagree with has a point, that provides more proof that skeptics tend to act like 9-11 truthers. I have *never* seen Cosmored, Dan, or Mouse, Parker2112, or any other of our own resident twoofers accede anything, or admit that their weak ass has been thoroughly debunked.
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #3439
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I often find libertarian to be the only alternative option.
    Libertarianism looks good on paper, but would fail to provide a workable government for a large country, as it does not do anything to overcome resource assymetry, to my knowledge. That is a huge problem, when it comes to running things fairly.

    In this, it is much like communism, IMO.

    Don't take my word for it. Some critiques of libertarianism are out there. Read them and decide for yourself.

    To be clear:

    I do think a lot of the principles are good, and am not unsympathetic, and I do share your frustration with our current system as well.
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #3440
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Libertarianism looks good on paper, but would fail to provide a workable government for a large country, as it does not do anything to overcome resource assymetry, to my knowledge. That is a huge problem, when it comes to running things fairly.

    In this, it is much like communism, IMO.

    Don't take my word for it. Some critiques of libertarianism are out there. Read them and decide for yourself.

    To be clear:

    I do think a lot of the principles are good, and am not unsympathetic, and I do share your frustration with our current system as well.
    If I felt that a third party actually had a shot to get elected then I would legitimately weigh the issues.

    As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

    Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  16. #3441
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

    Changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not the cause of climate cycles.
    ... and while we are at it, the Nets? Really? That's what you are going with?



    (gonna add a fifth... I can feel it...)
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #3442
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If I felt that a third party actually had a shot to get elected then I would legitimately weigh the issues.

    As to the asking of questions: questions do not make an argument. Asking questions in an effort to affirm or appear to affirm a part of your premise is fallacious. The refusal to answer your question in no way shape or form makes the premise more valid. Neither does them answering your question.

    Its a tactic that I see around here a lot but it proves nothing and quite frankly wastes a lot of time. State your premise and move on. When they do not acknowledge the argument then you point it out and press the issue. All you are doing is asking someone else to make your argument for you.
    What it does is get some common ground put together about things everybody agrees with, and takes away room to go back on if you don't like it later.
    RandomGuy is offline

  18. #3443
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    The existence CO2 in the atmosphere causes a minor increase in the radiative input of the atmosphere, this effect is both logarithmic and diminishing with increasing concentrations.

    If there's no strong, positive feedback mechanism, our great-grandchildren will read about AGW and wonder what all the fuss was about.
    DarrinS is offline

  19. #3444
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    If there's no strong, positive feedback mechanism, our great-grandchildren will read about AGW and wonder what all the fuss was about.
    Indeed.

    If there is, they will think you are a selfish, short-sighted , who should have listened to the warnings you were given. I do not think they would be very kind about it, e.g. Luddites.
    RandomGuy is offline

  20. #3445
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    One of the key reasons, perhaps the only key, the carbon energy industry is paying scientific s to deny (man-made) global warming.

    Clean Energy Switch to Cost Fossil Industry $4 Trillion by 2020

    http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/01/...=Google+Reader

    It's all about the money, NOT about the science.
    boutons_deux is offline

  21. #3446
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    One of the key reasons, perhaps the only key, the carbon energy industry is paying scientific s to deny (man-made) global warming.

    Clean Energy Switch to Cost Fossil Industry $4 Trillion by 2020

    http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/01/...=Google+Reader

    It's all about the money, NOT about the science.
    The IEA 2012 report on global progress:
    http://www.cleanenergyministerial.or...y_Progress.pdf




    I wonder what cost assumptions are built into the costs of fossil fuels avoided.

    The thing that I have discovered doing the financial analysis on things like solar, is that the returns tend to have very strong NPV's because the avoided costs go up with projected inflation of fuel costs.

    A doubling of the price of oil in ten years is just a 7% average rate of increase, which is less in the next ten years than it was the last ten, if I remember correctly.


    Yoni, you wanted a number, there is a rough guide.

    truth is truth, but you can buy a whole lot of scientific research favorable to your preferred theory for even a tenth of what they stand to lose.


    (edit)

    Since 2006, coal prices in China have been fully subject to market pricing and domestic coal prices rose by more than 50% from 2006 to 2008 (China Electricity Council, 2010).
    The continued policy of keeping power prices relatively low meant that China’s top five stateowned power generating groups incurred losses of USD 1.9 billion in the first five months of 2011. This transpired despite an increase in power prices, making future investments in higher-cost coal technologies a potential challenge (China Electric Council, 2011).
    China's goverment, by allowing these losses and not raising end user prices, is subsidizing coal power, as they do gasoline.

    This will drive them to use more of it than they would otherwise.

    The pool of Chinese drivers will, collectively, have more money to bid for oil than we will at some point, and be using more of it, to boot.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2012 at 12:38 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #3447
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Indeed.

    If there is, they will think you are a selfish, short-sighted , who should have listened to the warnings you were given. I do not think they would be very kind about it, e.g. Luddites.

    Shouldn't you be busy building the Ark and loading pairs of animals?
    DarrinS is offline

  23. #3448
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I wish I was as good at calling these guys out as you are.
    Maybe you should ask PT what he thinks about your implied comparison of alarmists to nazis.

    http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1335

    That ought to win him over to your cause.
    RandomGuy is offline

  24. #3449
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Shouldn't you be busy building the Ark and loading pairs of animals?
    If it does turn out badly, and people like you fought changes that might have prevented it tooth and nail, you think they will be thanking you? Are you that deluded?

    Why would I be building an ark?
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #3450
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Do scientists claim that natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist?
    Not to my knowledge.
    What you have here is, in essence, an appeal to ridicule.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html

    One could alternately construe it as a strawman argument, since there are no scientists to my knowledge that claim natural oscillations don't exist, or that natural climate change doesn't exist.

    Which are you going for, appeal to ridicule or strawman? Please elaborate.
    Option 3. Neither. Just showing the paleoclimate record.

    Manny has talked about we are going to have temperatures never seen before. According to the proxies used by this chart, we have seem higher temperatures already. Some of these are pretty high already. No big deal if we gain another 2 C.
    Wild Cobra is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •