Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,576
#4,576
Mtntrout said:
Let me rephrase for you: What would you need to see to be convinced humans are a driving force behind climate change?


I find it funny how the rhetoric shifts in these kind of conversations. One moment there is no climate change, the next it is just not caused by people, the next it is just not that big of a deal, then back to there is no climate change. No factually based position is ever taken, and thus there is no way to properly evaluate the position. So I ask: what would you need to see to accept anthropogenic climate change?
Click to expand...

You consistently state things that others have said then argue against them. Problem is you misquoted the Fwak out of me again.

Find a post on any message board where I've ever said that climate doesn't change. That would be beyond stupid.

To answer your question. I'm not sure at this point. With all the politics involved now it's hard to believe anything that comes from a group with a history of cooking the books and being wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,579
#4,579
Mtntrout said:
Let me rephrase for you: What would you need to see to be convinced humans are a driving force behind climate change?


I find it funny how the rhetoric shifts in these kind of conversations. One moment there is no climate change, the next it is just not caused by people, the next it is just not that big of a deal, then back to there is no climate change. No factually based position is ever taken, and thus there is no way to properly evaluate the position. So I ask: what would you need to see to accept anthropogenic climate change?
Click to expand...

Convince Roy Spencer, Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Alan Carlin, Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer and then I might be convinced.
 
#4,580
#4,580
volinbham said:
Let's not forget that there are peddlers of falsehood on both sides of this issue.

When the head of the EPA claims Aspen will be the same climate as Amarillo and science writers claim climate change is causing acidification of the ocean (2 recent examples in this thread) why wouldn't people be skeptical of "science".
Click to expand...

Really? Ocean acidification and global warming are both due to human CO2 emissions. They’re part of the same problem. Why are you giving that science writer a hard time about saying climate change causes ocean acidification? It’s basically the same thing.

And you’re equating that error to Willie Soon’s debauchery? You’ve gotta be kidding
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,581
#4,581
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,582
#4,582
theFallGuy said:
Doctors recommended smoking actually but nice try.
Click to expand...
The scientific community (and tobacco industries themselves) knew of the health risks of smoking at least since the ‘50s, yet tobacco successfully fought off regulation and lawsuits for another half a century. Why is that?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0PYdl99tI[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,583
#4,583
LouderVol said:
my problem are the alarmists. Right or wrong they need to come up with real ways to deal with the issue. imo they are too busy saying "the sky is falling the sky is falling" and not enough time getting out of the way/fixing the problem/figuring out how to. and no, the carbon tax/cap'n'trade would not be fixing the problem. if what they say is true, the carbon tax isn't fixing the problem it is just passing on responsibility to someone else.
Click to expand...
LouderVol said:
agreed, as far as China goes. Call it the moral high ground if you want, but it would be a lot easier if we removed the 2x4 from our own eye before dealing with someone else's. (getting biblical). basically China has said they don't want to figure it out (the science). we figure it out and we can start exporting our expertise in that field, consider it a technology if you will. china then gets to mass produce while having no real understanding of how it works or how to improve upon it. (generalizing a bit there). and there are 'quick fixes' out there, it just takes a lot of regulation (which we don't need more of) and a lot of cooperation and money (which we don't have) and after it gets settled 5-10 years (a pipe dream) the regulation goes away (which never happens). our desires of freedom and personal choice have ensured that America is way too unwieldy and can't get out of its own way. China if they put their mind to it could 'fix' their country by next year, we couldn't get the Senate to meet to consider a bill in a year.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of truth to that last sentence. On fixing the problem, our options are either cut emissions or try some form of geoengineering. Most people agree geoengineering is crazy risky and should be a last resort. So the obvious move should be to cut emissions.

Why do you think cap-and-trade or a carbon tax wouldn’t work? Cap-and-trade has helped us cut lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depleting substances in the past (under presidents Reagan and Bush, btw). I prefer a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap like the fair tax. What alternative do you propose?

Btw, in case you weren’t aware, China is moving forward with a cap-and-trade system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,584
#4,584
Sandvol said:
Convince Roy Spencer, Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Alan Carlin, Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer and then I might be convinced.
Click to expand...
Lol. I guess you won’t be convinced of evolution until Ken Ham is either. What about that recently converted skeptic Richard Mueller? You said you’d follow his work, right?

Would you admit cap-and-trade is a legitimate option (and not a marxist/statist/terrorist/obamist ploy) if Fred Singer supported cap-and-trade?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,585
#4,585
Best post today-
Mtntrout said:
I find it funny how the rhetoric shifts in these kind of conversations. One moment there is no climate change, the next it is just not caused by people, the next it is just not that big of a deal, then back to there is no climate change. No factually based position is ever taken, and thus there is no way to properly evaluate the position.
Click to expand...
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Now you know what you’re up against. And it’s not just the frame shifts that go through cycles; you’ll see thoroughly debunked talking points resurface on a weekly basis.

It was global cooling in the ‘70s! “They” changed the name from global warming to climate change! No warming since 1998! Look at the Antarctic sea ice! Rabble rabble medieval warm period!

So it goes
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,586
#4,586
#4,587
#4,587
MaxamusXIII said:
You consistently state things that others have said then argue against them. Problem is you misquoted the Fwak out of me again.

Find a post on any message board where I've ever said that climate doesn't change. That would be beyond stupid.

To answer your question. I'm not sure at this point. With all the politics involved now it's hard to believe anything that comes from a group with a history of cooking the books and being wrong.
Click to expand...

So, nothing. There is no evidence possible that would change your mind. That is irrational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,588
#4,588
Sandvol said:
Convince Roy Spencer, Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Alan Carlin, Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer and then I might be convinced.
Click to expand...

So I have to bribe people? Because that is what is convincing them.

Are you saying there is no evidence that could convince you personally? You will only follow what those men tell you on the subject?

I really didn't expect to hear that no evidence whatsoever would convince people. That puts this whole "debate" in perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,590
#4,590
Mtntrout said:
Not necessarily. It is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Also, keep in mind we in the US tend to only focus on storms that affect us. The Western Pacific has been experiencing massive hurricanes (they call them typhoons and tropical cyclones) while things have been pretty quiet in the Caribbean and tropical Atlantic.
Click to expand...

Global Cyclonic Activity= Hurricanes and Typhoons has not fluctuated since the 1970s. Considering we have pumped so much Co2 into the atmosphere, wouldn't that be increasing? In fact the past 6 years, cyclonic activity is well below average.
 
Last edited:
#4,594
#4,594
BartW said:
Lol. I guess you won’t be convinced of evolution until Ken Ham is either. What about that recently converted skeptic Richard Mueller? You said you’d follow his work, right?

Would you admit cap-and-trade is a legitimate option (and not a marxist/statist/terrorist/obamist ploy) if Fred Singer supported cap-and-trade?
Click to expand...

I'd never support any new taxes. Also, you need to convince all these other guys first. I'd like for Mueller and his group to take a look at fluorocarbons. Mueller seems to be an honest and genuine guy. What do you think of his views about your boy Mann?
 
Last edited:
#4,595
#4,595
BartW said:
There’s a lot of truth to that last sentence. On fixing the problem, our options are either cut emissions or try some form of geoengineering. Most people agree geoengineering is crazy risky and should be a last resort. So the obvious move should be to cut emissions.

Why do you think cap-and-trade or a carbon tax wouldn’t work? Cap-and-trade has helped us cut lead pollution, acid rain, and ozone depleting substances in the past (under presidents Reagan and Bush, btw). I prefer a revenue-neutral carbon tax swap like the fair tax. What alternative do you propose?

Btw, in case you weren’t aware, China is moving forward with a cap-and-trade system.
Click to expand...

in the case of previous cap and trades there was an existing viable alternative. as much as i love sustainable energy it isn't there yet. And the tax just limits growth it won't necessarily cut back the actual emissions. corporations would just have to spend more money. while it is an incentive to stop it doesn't actually fix it. some corporations will be able to beat their chest and say I only spent $10 on the tax/trade while others are still at $1,000,000 plus range. you are just finding out who doesn't mind paying some amount of money to keep doing things the same way.

The fixes i am talking about are finding cleaner burning fuels, or other sources, sustainable or not, finding more efficient methods of making stuff(less energy intensive) better buildings, better infrastructure. (nuclear is one, and there is tidal, geo thermal etc-none exist at the level they need to right now) the actual usage of the energy is only the tail end of a problem that extends beyond GW and that is waste and inefficiency. heck i think they are even working on road material that collects energy from the cars driving.Piezoelectric Roads in Israel and California: Powering Up Cities as You Drive : The Environmental Blog
we, as society, need a violent push into the future. the stuff is out there, the technology and science is proven (case dependent of course) the change has to be a society level, people not driving 45 minutes to work so they can live in the burbs on 3/4 acre they never use beyond mowing in a 3000sqft house filled with crap they used once. more mass transit, and better stuff so we don't have to keep making the same crap and crap choices every few years.

i hadn't heard about china's cap and trade, i will believe the results when i see them. they are very much a country that says one thing but what they actually do is completely another or a way to b@st@rdize what they said. the cap and trade if it happens will be good for China not good for the world.
 
#4,596
#4,596
10959400_917495711616993_2388536105704837672_n.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#4,597
#4,597
BartW said:
Really? Ocean acidification and global warming are both due to human CO2 emissions. They’re part of the same problem. Why are you giving that science writer a hard time about saying climate change causes ocean acidification? It’s basically the same thing.

And you’re equating that error to Willie Soon’s debauchery? You’ve gotta be kidding
Click to expand...

Is it not the same thing - the climate change is a RESULT of CO2. Acidification is a RESULT of CO2. Climate change is not a CAUSE of acidification. They are both outcomes of the same root cause. CO2 is a causal agent for any number of phenomena but it would be wrong to then assert those phenomena cause each other since CO2 was involved.

Just because 2 items have the same CAUSE does not mean one causes the other. You know that.

You repeatedly hammer people for making statements not supported by the science but you give this a pass.

I wasn't equating it to anything else (Willie Soon). I'm pointing out that the translation of scientific finding to public consumable fact is often incorrect. I chose to very recent examples in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,598
#4,598
BartW said:
Best post today-

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Now you know what you’re up against. And it’s not just the frame shifts that go through cycles; you’ll see thoroughly debunked talking points resurface on a weekly basis.

It was global cooling in the ‘70s! “They” changed the name from global warming to climate change! No warming since 1998! Look at the Antarctic sea ice! Rabble rabble medieval warm period!

So it goes
Click to expand...

To be fair the items in the last paragraph are relevant (though not sufficient) for a few reasons:

1. Some are data points that certainly need to be factored into understanding of the larger system. There is no doubt that some data over the last 15 years or so has not fit the models as expected and has caused people to exam theories, data collection methods, etc. When empirical data doesn't fit the theory the theory should be refined and they have been.

2. On the implications/policy side the Global Cooling example is just one case where as we move from basic relationships (CO2 - warming) to specific outcomes (more extreme storms or "x" impact on "y" species) we move more into the realm of less supported findings are the massive "all else equal" caveat needed for some of these theories. It's akin to ripples on the pond - the CO2 warming link breeds any number of other conclusions moving outward that are less well established and have many intervening variables between warming and the focal outcome that are not factored in.

So while I agree that some people will always move the goal posts there is also a long history here of people taking findings that are well established in one area and moving out the speculation spectrum to predict any number of other consequences - usually as "evidence" to enact a particular policy.
 
#4,599
#4,599
To explain my last post I'll try this tact.

The 97% consensus refers to the link between human actions adding CO2 to the climate and some degree of warming effect as a result.

As you move from that to the ramifications to nature, weather, etc you also move away from 97% consensus or "settled science".

For example - the article a few pages back "linking" extreme weather event frequency to climate change is NOT at the same level of consensus or settled science that the core relationship is. It is speculation based on some correlation findings.

Just as it is wrong to point to a record cold winter snow as DISPROVING the basic CO2 relationship to warming; it is wrong to treat all implications of climate change as having consensus or being settled science.

So that's why we end up with "denier" labels being applied to anyone who questions any of the wide ranging implications that are presented as being the direct result of climate change. Even respected scientists who dare question the whole set of dire predictions across the range of life are attacked and have their motives questioned.
 
#4,600
#4,600
govols/cc said:
It's also irrational to use anything and everything as evidence.
Click to expand...

Saying something is consistent with models as a counter to the insinuation or claim that it is not doesn't make that something "evidence" of climate change, it is evidence that it isn't inconsistent with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top