Reply With Quote
I didn't ignore it, it just got lost. It was adequately addressed in that thread though.
^^He is going to ignore it!
I didn't ignore it, it just got lost. It was adequately addressed in that thread though.
No one "poo poos" the data, just some people's interpretation of the data.
We haven't has any warming in the last 10 years. Have CO2 emmisions declined in that time period?
There was a decline in global temperatures form the mid 1940's to the early 1970's. Was that a time period when CO2 emmissions were on the rise or fall?
YES, I think that humans influence the climate -- they have since they first discovered fire. Do I think Florida will be underwater any time soon? NO. So, you can believe in "climate change" (always has -- always will) without being a Gore catastrophist.
By the way, RG, why does it bother you if there are so-called "GW Deniers" out there? You can just dismiss us as heretics and move on with your church of global warmingology consensus. You can build a solar-panelled house way up in the hills, stockpile it with food, water, etc. and wait for the giant waves to engulf the coastline.
"church of global warmingology"?
Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch. I would say that you and WC are hewing to something akin to dogma much more than I am.
I think the rabid bad logic tends to be on the radid deniers like Wild Cobra just as much as some of the most vocal alarmists.
Since you have distorted my postion on the matter, yet again, I will ask you the same question that WC can't seem to answer:
Which is the more dogmatic statement, Darrin?
"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"
or
"It is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
BTW
This thread isn't about global warming. It is simply about acidity in the oceans.
I don't think either statement is completely accurate. By the way, the second statement, beginning with "It is a plausible theory" is a much different statement than "the debate is over" rhetoric of the Al Gore-ists.
I just don't think computer modeling + consensus = science.
I think this quote by from Albert Einstein expresses this best:
"No amount of Experimentation can Prove Me right, It only takes one to prove me wrong."
I didn't ask which one you thought was more accurate.
I asked which one you thought was more dogmatic.
Now please answer the question.
Which is the more dogmatic statement:
"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"
or
"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
Who is it you think is saying this?
Which is the more dogmatic statement:
"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"
or
"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
Dogma is a belief of faith, without good evidence. I say the alarmists have no good evidence because they ignore real scientific facts that don't suit their agenda.
At least I'm not in denial. I'll accept the term "Denier" as a badge of honor. Few people are willing to defy dogma and be called a heretic.
Problem is, both statements are blatantly false. To take false statements, and decide which is more dogmatic? Too much gray for me. How about some separation:
"There is no possibility that global warming exists"
False
"There is no possibility that global is caused by man"
In degrees of effect, more false than true. Only a very small part can be attributed to man.
"Natural Global Warming is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding"
True
"Anthropogenic Global Warming is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding"
True, to a limited extent
"Global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
False
Does that clarify things for you?
This is the first day I've seen this thread. I joined 5/28/07, more than a year after this thread was started. I find you assessment of ethanol absolutely laughable. To take a crop grown near the equator, in an area with an average 22 inches per year rainfall, and think there's any comparison to growing crops for ethanol here? Have you since rethought your ideas?
Obvisously the first one, but I have never stated that.
By the way, ever seen the program "Discovery Project Earth". Mostly a bunch of reallly bad ideas, including
* wrapping glaciers in blankets to keep them from melting
* Adding water vapor to create more clouds and block sunlight. Uh, what?
* Sending trillions of lenses in space and creating a 100,000-square-mile sunshade. (Gee, these guys are awfully worried about the sun for some reason).
More bad ideas here (a few are ok) --> http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-...ighlights.html
You know what would actually be frightening? Global cooling.
And RG, I don't know if it makes any difference, but I have two small cars -- a Honda and a Subaru. I ride my bike or walk when I can. I do a lot of recycling. I turn off electricity when it's not being used.
Based on everything I've read, I just don't think we are headed for some environmental doomsday. If that makes me a "denier" or a "heretic", then so be it.
Whats more dogmatic...
This lie or this lie?
Which is the more dogmatic statement:
"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"
or
"It is plausible, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
Thank you. An intellectually honest answer to the question as asked. Props, man.
I know you have never stated that, and it is not my contention to put words in your mouth.
However, you accuse me of being some blind adherent to "church of warming" or similar, and I think that was a bit unfair.
My views are more closely represented by the latter statement, which is the less dogmatic version of "there is no possibility that we aren't causing global warming".
The statement:
"There is no possibility that global warming either exists or is caused by man"
Is pretty much what Wild Cobra has said.
He has claimed, if memory serves, that all the global warming trends up until 2004 have been erased by recent declines in temperature (global warming doesn't exist).
Further, he has put the possibility that man's actions have contributed to global warming, even if it exists, to such a negligible amount that saying that man-made global warming is next to impossible.
For these reasons, I don't think that statement is an inaccurate portrayal of what WC and a lot of people like WC believe.
This would, by your admission, put him in the "church of man-made global warming deniers" on the other side of the "church of man-made global warming" camp.
Both sides in this debate have their wild-eyed fanatics, and it is left to the rest of us to try and ferret out some reasonable conclusions.
From what I see the weight of scientific opinion is on the side that we are warming our planet with our releases of greenhouse gases.
When people like WC start throwing out scientists who doubt it, I can't help but be reminded of conspiracy theorists and how they trot out a few people with topical knowledge who buy their theories, and ignore the tens of thousands of people with topical knowledge that don't.
Again, people like WC remind me of these conspiracy theorists who learn just enough science to be able to construct some reasonable sounding arguments, but when real scientists who actually have PhDs in the area look into these arguments, they tend to fall apart.
As I have said before, since the topic is more complex than I can reasonably figure out without going back to grad school I am left with this logical conclusion:
You are more logically functional than the fanatics, so in the end, despite your doubts, the conclusion about what we should be doing is fairly obvious.
I don't think you quite understand my thoughts.
I don't think there is "any comparison to growing crops for ethanol here" as the above statements in that thread clearly demonstrate.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-16-2008 at 07:23 PM. Reason: toned down hostility.
That they both might be lies, does not preclude one from being more dogmatic than the other to a reasonable person.
Thanks for playing though. Here is the home version of "Missing the Point".
Here is a prime example of why I get pissed off at you. That is not from my viewpoint How can you forget that I have constantly acknowledged that about a third of warming can be antropogenic?
I'll give you this. I am confident that between 10% to 30% of the warming we see is by us!
Funny how you change the quote. A person comming in may not understand the facts if they don't look back a few posts. I even explained in by parsing of the quotes, yet you just gon't give up."It is a plausible theory, based on current scientific understanding, that global warming exists and is caused in no small part by the action of our civilization?"
Problem is that you are looking at it from your understanding of science, and expect everyone to see the same thing. Like I pointed out in another thread, I don't think here. You haven't touched the thread I started about Solar Global Warming. You simply refuse to acknowledge how much the sun clearly affects us.
Wrong again. I have NEVER made such a claim. I said we see no new data past 2004 that supports antropogenic warming.
Impossible as the sole cause. Yes. Impossible as the major cause. Yes.
That's because you refuse to acknwledge our reasons for believing otherwise. Factors not given weight by the Alarmists like the changing solar radiation, soot on the arctic surfaces, the time lag of stored heat, carbon dioxide equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere vs. temperature, etc.
No, the evidence is well within the 'noise' levels of measured temperatures when you properly account for the other factors.
Remember the post that had an insider state the IPCC as a purely political agenda?
It is the alarmists that act like conspiracy theorists. Show me a paper that properly addresses the sun ocean and physical pollutants, and I will consider changing my mind. I have never seen one yet.
Quite easily, actually.
My memory of your ultimate position is that man was responsible for a negligable portion of current warming trends.
This isn't too far off of the above statement, but if that is your position, my statement of your position would be inaccurate, yes.
If that's the case:
My apologies for getting it wrong.
Is it a reasonable possibility that 10-30% might be enough to push climate patterns over some unknown "tipping point" and cause some really drastic changes in climate patterns worldwide?
Problem is that we have past global temperatures three times the increase we compare against the 18th century temperatures than today. This is just within the last 10,000 years. They haven't taken us pat the tipping point.
"the tipping point".
You say that as if you know what that tipping point is for any given combination of factors in the complex system of our global climate.
Do you know where that tipping point is for the current and near future set of factors?
Among points made in some of those papers are that natural climate variations affect temperature. This has never been in dispute, but the critical question for the warming of the past 100 years is quan ative - how much is natural and how much anthropogenic? The predominance of anthropogenic carbon emissions, mainly CO2, has been do ented by hundreds of studies over the past several years, but one criticism is the extent to which that conclusion depends on specific climate models. It's therefore relevant that the recent Lean and Rind GRL paper uses model-independent analysis of the variances of climate effectors to draw the same conclusions, finding that >90 percent of the warming has been due to human carbon emissions.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/322/5901/532
"The strong scientific consensus on the causes and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion and complacency among the public."
"For most people, uncertainty about the risks of climate change means costly actions to reduce emissions should be deferred; if climate change begins to harm the economy, mitigation policies can then be implemented. However, long delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing mean such reasoning is erroneous...Mitigating the risks therefore requires emissions reductions long before additional harm is evident."
Back to strong scientic consensus. That's not true when you speak to nonpartisan scientists that don't get paid for being an alarmist. Besides, if scientific consensus was fact. The earth would be flat.
Mitigation first requires understanding the major causes. How about we reduct black carbon emissions rather than CO2?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
