Climal Warmging Thread?

[driveby]

I have been trying for months to determine if you are the best troll on the Huddle, or an idiot. And I still can't figure it out.

and instead of or should clear it up for you maybe?

[Square]

You libforks banned incandescent light bulbs to save electricity... yet you are ravenous about electric cars.... which plug into the same grid and I could only assume eat a schit load more juice than the 60w in my attic. That is smart.

So you shouldn't use a light source that is 75% more efficient because an electric car also uses electricity? One of the dumbest things I've heard on here for awhile.

[Square]

You would be very very wrong. And you're missing the point. No-one should be arguing the climate change is "fact," the premise of your point is doo-doo. It's a straw-man argument; not a Scientific one. And Science doesn't necessarily advance only when things become "fact." You are oversimplifying the intricacies of the SM.

Here is a small part of an article that I think points out what I think he is trying to say.

 

It's not uncommon to find lists of scientists who hold alternative

viewpoints being promoted by those who disagree with established scientific theories. Minority groups use these lists as part of the 'proof' that the vast body of evidence in support of a theory is somehow wrong, or to imply a greater amount of controversy or confusion within academia over a topic than there is in reality.

 

In my belief, this comes from the mistaken view that the scientific community need to agree on a single world view for a theory to have a solid grounding. After all, most people's education of science is of established principles in a school textbook, which are then examined in a situation where there is usually a single correct answer. This, in turn, leaves those outside of the community to see even a small division of belief on controversial theories as evidence that the leading explanation does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

Of course, this isn't true: those in academia are constantly debating and modifying their ideas over time as new evidence comes to light, and those who hold minority viewpoints are valued for their opinion, but only when they can provide evidence for their stance, not for their ability to sign a petition.

[jetsfan]

Weather is what we can't accurately predict more than 48 hours from today. Climate we can predict for centuries.

 

Weather is awesome in Houston today. Thank you global warming!!!

[Square]

I don't think so. The "science" I see batted around here and elsewhere is merely rehashed points of the climate chicken hawks - whose agenda is purely politcal.

Is NASA too political for you? I'm sure there is some conspiracy about how they are on the take and not credible, but I'm guessing the scientists there know a thing or two.

 

 

If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now?

 

The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past few decades isn’t part of a natural cycle is how fast the change is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius. The warming of the past century—0.7 degrees Celsius—is roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming on average.

[bushwacked]

Here is a small part of an article that I think points out what I think he is trying to say.

 

This, is a very valid point and describes the current situation very well.

[bushwacked]

Is NASA too political for you? I'm sure there is some conspiracy about how they are on the take and not credible, but I'm guessing the scientists there know a thing or two.

 

 

 

Very succinct and informative link. Thanks.

[redrumjuice]

There is a good chance the experts know more than you and me;

 

You mean like using food to replace gasoline? How's that working out?

 

So you shouldn't use a light source that is 75% more efficient because an electric car also uses electricity?

 

LED's are the most efficient, I want everyone in the world to switch to LED's before the new year, average cost of a few thousand per family, we have to do this NOW or the world dies. Are you with me?

 

I bought a bunch of those stupid weird light bulbs the past few years, they still burn out, they don't work as good, and now to find out they are extremely toxic. What a stupid, stupid knee jerk scam this is.

[Yukon Cornelius]

You mean like using food to replace gasoline? How's that working out?

u do know that most corn is not used as food for humans right?

[bpwallace49]

I am not overly sold that global warming is the end of the world, and this topic is waaaayyy too politiczed for any semblance of a discussion.

[Ursa Majoris]

Late January, two guys on the 10th tee somewhere in New York. Soft Breeze, mid-70s. One guy looks and the other and says, "Nice out!"

Sounds good. Certainly could use it being a few degrees warmer here in Minny. (I digress but Minnesota apparently stands to benefit a lot if global warming pans out the way it is projected to).

 

What about San Diego though? While those guys are golfing in NY in January, it's 120 degrees in poor old San Diego, rising to 140+ in the summer. Have fun.

[gbpfan1231]

So you shouldn't use a light source that is 75% more efficient because an electric car also uses electricity? One of the dumbest things I've heard on here for awhile.

So in other words.. you have Bushwacked on Ignore? Could not resist.

[gbpfan1231]

I think the best part of this whole topic is that Bushwacker is screaming global warming and the world will end while in 99% of his other posts he screams GOMZ and says that the repubs are fear mongerers. No way that any fear mongering is taking place here - no freaking way.

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the optimal aggregate temperature for this planet is.

[bushwacked]

I think the best part of this whole topic is that Bushwacker is screaming global warming and the world will end while in 99% of his other posts he screams GOMZ and says that the repubs are fear mongerers. No way that any fear mongering is taking place here - no freaking way.

 

 

Show me once where I'm calling climate warming a doomsday scenario in this thread. Yer not going to find it. It's long been my position the debate should be focused on what proactive and sensible measures should be taken instead of wasting energy on debating the validity of whether the industrial age effects the planet.

 

You are not very good at the innernets.

[gbpfan1231]

 

Show me once where I'm calling climate warming a doomsday scenario in this thread. Yer not going to find it. It's long been my position the debate should be focused on what proactive and sensible measures should be taken instead of wasting energy on debating the validity of whether the industrial age effects the planet.

 

You are not very good at the innernets.

I will give you one thing - you can really annoy me - I absolutely can't stand it when you use the word innernets. Not sure why but it bugs the diaper dirt out of me.

 

OK so you are not specifically calling for doomsday but this whole global warming crap sure seems like one of your patented GMOZ moments.

[bushwacked]

OK so you are not specifically calling for doomsday but this whole global warming crap sure seems like one of your patented GMOZ moments.

 

There is nothing GMOZ about Science.

 

You missed the obvious one. Getting excited about the hypocrisy of people flying into Cancun in jets to attend a climate change conference is a prime example of a desperately dumb GMOZ!!! moment.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bushwacked

[Azazello1313]

I am not overly sold that global warming is the end of the world, and this topic is waaaayyy too politiczed for any semblance of a discussion.

 

pretty much. I accept that there is a greenhouse effect from CO2. I accept that this could theoretically be pretty bad for human civilization. I also accept that it could theoretically be good for human civilization. I think the degree of that greenhouse effect from manmade CO2, and how it interacts with other natural factors is an area with enormous uncertainty. and I've seen too much crystal clear evidence that the people pushing the science on this are activists and policy advocates first, scientists a distant second, to take them and their chicken little claims very seriously. I am completely convinced that most of them will paint any and all data in the most alarmist light possible, they will fudge away discrepancies that are at odds with their preferred outcome, accentuate discrepancies that bolster their preferred outcome, and so on. anything so long as it pushes the preferred policy goal. I don't think most people go into that particular field of "science" without feeling they are stepping into an ideological battle. this degrades the value of the "science" enormously.

 

that said, I DO think it's a serious issue. we need to look at it dispassionately, figure out exactly what the costs and benefits of a certain degree of temperature increase might be, how they will be distributed through the world, what kind of countermeasures there might be, and so on. right now we don't see that at all. if someone proposes that the there might be benefits to global warming, or that technology that would reflect more of the sun's rays might counteract the greenhouse effect, or that the costs of economically crippling anti-carbon policies might outweigh the speculative benefits as far as ever-so-slightly bending down the temperature arc -- that person is shouted down as a denier and a heretic. only one answer is allowed, and it just so happens to coincide ever-so-neatly with the interests of one side of the decades (nay, centuries) old debate about political philosophy. the whole climate change "debate" is in an incredibly poor intellectual state at present, the voices who can be taken seriously at this point are few and far between.

[gbpfan1231]

There is nothing GMOZ about Science.

 

You missed the obvious one. Getting excited about the hypocrisy of people flying into Cancun in jets to attend a climate change conference is a prime example of a desperately dumb GMOZ!!! moment.

Yes but I bet a lot of the same people who ripped on the execs flying to DC for those meetings on private jets have no issue with these yahoos flying to Cancun. I agree it is a stupid thing to bitch about but they should be a bit smarter on these things at the very least to show a better message.

[Jimmy Neutron]

In other science news...

 

Far out.

[Deathpig]

Thank you very much for the links.

 

I find it odd in the historical climate link that we are 'due' for a period of elevated temperature at least from the pattern of elevated temperature that seems to occur like clockwork every 100,000 years.

 

I'm still curious where the evidence is that carbon dioxide changing from 0.00000300 to 0.00000380 causes the corresponding change in temperature. I think the correlation between the two is quite well evidenced, but has there been actual scientific experiments conducted with different atmospheric compositions to test heat retention of different greenhouse gasses to prove that ALL of the warming is a casual effect of elevated CO2? (And this means, could the rising temperature cause the CO2 change instead of vice versa? Is a gas that is not CO2 more responsible for changes in temperature, etc.).

 

Also, what level of CO2 is man-made? The planet has had levels of high CO2 before. Currently the levels seem very, very high but how much of that is caused by man? Some amount is, but how much? Simply taking the current reading and comparing to what you think the level should be isn't a particularly strong answer-- that's more how you generate the hypothesis that you then test against. I honestly don't know how you would even try and accumulate the data to calculate worldwide carbon dioxide emissions over time with any sort of precision, but that's also not my job.

 

At the end of the day, if you want to argue about a new species of butterfly, or argue the origins of dark matter in the universe you can have a good time running with scientific consensus. The difference here is that those people aren't trying to pass worldwide legislation targeting individual and economic freedoms-- that should require a bit higher standard of proof. And what I'm asking for is the proof of how effective lowering worldwide carbon emissions will actually do lowering global temperatures (again, it likely has some effect, but how much?).

[McBoog]

The problem is that science has a means for proving something. These means haven't been used in the case of climate change. We are to accept that a majority shared opinion is now fact.

 

Climate change believers (and believer is such a wonderfully loaded term for this) believe the following hypothesis is true:

 

"The mean global temperature of the earth is rising due to man creating a large amount of greenhouse gasses which trap sunlight and warm the planet."

 

To PROVE this (you know, all scientifically and stuff) you need to prove, at the very least, the following:

 

1) How much of the increase in global temperature is directly attributable to the increase in greenhouse gasses.

2) How much of the increase in greenhouse gasses is directly attributable to human causes.

 

It's up to the climate change group to prove (PROVE, not hypothesize and declare that as proof) the above.

 

Now, if someone wants to link to me actual research done via the generally accepted method of scientific method that shows experiments, methods, and data to show causal relationships in both cases, with dissenting studies done based on the same methods, then I'm pretty sure everyone would shut up about global warming. See, for as long as we've had science, THIS is how you go about proving something. Saying 90% of scientists agree with the concept of global warming is no different than saying 80% of dentists recommend Colgate. Or, to add some zest, a preponderance of intelligence analysts agreed with the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs.

 

Every attempt to get the climate change cartel to release any of their information has been met with complete obstinance, and for them to go so far as to say " we can't release our data or methods because if you try and replicate them you'll get a different result, but that's because you're a skeptic and you'd be lying to make us look bad".

 

A preponderance of scientific opinion does not equal fact. Complete denial at revealing methods and data does not equal science. If they had the ability to irrefutably prove their position it would be proven scientifically already and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

I'm not saying you can't keep on believing that factories cars cow farts are destroying the planet... but you have to understand that what you have is Belief, not Science.

I no longer feel alone. Thank you Lord!

 

Yes, he is both. You should always be prepared for a heavy dose of brow beating and poo-pooing at all times. The mere fact he says you are wrong... YOU ARE! Elitist mental flatulence at its finest. Taken to the level of art actually. It is quite hughmorous to see him try to defend this position and talk about science and the scientific method.

 

First of all. I do believe that the earth's climate is changing. It does every second of every day and has done so forever, with or without the presence of eeeevil HUGH-mons.

 

Anyway, other things that need to be tested against the hypothesis, and weren't, if there ever was a formal one to start with (no where near a complete list):

 

1) Are there other factors that could be causing this effect other than CO2 and the rising levels of CO2 itself?

2) Does the sun have any effect on the the climate of the planet as it goes through its cycles of activity?

3) Does the recent cycle of reduced cloud cover and the extra sun hitting the oceans driving up world atmospheric H2O vapor levels have an effect? H2O in all its forms is a much better greenhouse gas (heat sink) than CO2.

4) Does the upwelling cycle of the oceans that effects ocean surface temperature, in turn effecting world wind patterns have an influence?

5) Do any of these (and others), individually or when combined together have a greater influence over the ultimate result?

6) Are these projected to be permanent or temporary effects if we do nothing?

7) What are findings the proposed actions effects on a time scale and will these too be permanent or temporary?

 

The problem with the "science" that was applied was that it was not science, nor the scientific method. They had to prove a point rather than test a hypothesis. Without addressing any of the above questions and their contributory effect on the changing world climate/weather system, the findings are absolutely flawed and useless.

 

Scientists by nature are more skeptical about absolute finding than those in other disciplines (until now ). The very nature of how these findings were accepted with unquestioning, open arms was the first MAJOR red flag to me.

 

THEN...

 

The Hokey, errr, Hockey Stick. This was the BIG highlight and clear evidence that broke it down for all of us wee-todds, toooo stoooopid to really figure it out on our own. But then someone removed the emperors new graph and noticed that CO2 was rising as a LAG to climbing global temperatures on the graph and not as a causal event.

 

 

Now what do we do?????? We have all these cool photo shop pictures of the earth screaming through space as a ball of fire and Polar Bears drowning because there's no more ice! Crap! I spent a lot of money at Kinko's for these materials!

 

Soooo. We release about 752 subsequent reports from all of our surrogates on the dole, ummm, I mean, experts, with all kinds of explanations and opinions as to why CO2 is the culprit and it is the eeeevil HUGH-mons fault. Don't look in my right hand, look at my left hand with the pretty thingy in it!

 

None of this references back to "The Graph", which all of this was based on in the first place. They made that disappear like Vincent Foster going out for a stroll. However, this is all like the science version of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" in American Law. The original premise was wrong, so all derivatives therefore are flawed as well. This is the real "inconvenient truth" in this whole facade.

 

Kabuki Theater at its finest.

 

I am personally much more concerned about all the nitrogen being pumped into our oceans as a result of fertilizer run off from all the ethanol corn being grown as well as other industrial poisons. I am more concerned about being mandated to bring highly toxic florescent light bulbs into my home and the tons of mercury that will end up in our land fills because of them. I am more concerned about the real poisons spewed by our engines and factories into the air, especially by countries that have not taken the measures to apply technologies to scrub their emissions and minimize their effects. The ecological effect where these elements of our "eeevil, HUGH-mon" existence is becoming horrifically evident is in the world wide amphibian populations, but who cares about an ugly old frog or slimy salamander?

 

If you make this argument, not the CO2 dribble, a real and provable argument, it would be much easier to get the populous on board to do something about it. However, there is not the sexy fear factor like imminent global destruction that can be proven and the steps to be taken are not nearly as drastic (or centrally controllable by the government). This then limits the ability of the world statists to push their political agenda upon all of us. And like everything that is of no use to forwarding the agenda of the left, it is dismissed and "disappeared", just like Vince Foster.

 

 

"Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism." David Suzuki

[Perchoutofwater]

Global warming summit starts with prayer to Myan Moon Goddess.

[McBoog]

Global warming summit starts with prayer to Myan Moon Goddess.

 

 

She would have been drummed off the peninsula if she invoked Jeebus' name.

 

ETA:

 

Did I say "drummed?!?!"

 

I meant,

 

She would have had her beating heart ripped out of her chest, then decapitated so that her twitching body and head could roll down the ancient temple separately to join the corpses of all the other nay sayers.

Edited December 3, 2010 by McBoog

[Duchess Jack]

It seems like global warming is a hard thing to prove because we're talking about how the whole world potentially contributing to it. Its not something that can be tested in a lab. Its also something that happens over a long long long time. I don't know if it'll ever be proven, because folk can just go back to the cyclic climate thing.

 

With that said - should all protential problems be ignored if the cause is not 100% understood?