Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,326
#5,326
Grand Vol said:
So you don't have an answer to the base question and continue avoiding it.

That's all you needed to say.
Click to expand...
.
Anyway, I'll paraphrase the original question. Not that you're going to answer it...

With so many doom and gloom predictions over the years (which you scoffed as an acknowledgment) how can one tell exactly what the climate change will bring?
Click to expand...
You could read the IPCC's fifth assessment report.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,327
#5,327
BartW said:
.
Click to expand...

And again, with so many predictions being wrong over the years, how can I trust that one either?

Don't play this BS card that I believe in the "once wrong always wrong" like you did before. It's a legitimate question. How can I take predictions and forecasts seriously when many of them have turned out to be wrong?
 
#5,328
#5,328
Grand Vol said:
And again, with so many predictions being wrong over the years, how can I trust that one either?

Don't play this BS card that I believe in the "once wrong always wrong" like you did before. It's a legitimate question. How can I take predictions and forecasts seriously when many of them have turned out to be wrong?
Click to expand...
Like what?

You missed the point of that rationalwiki
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,329
#5,329
BartW said:
This is a cross-thread analogy. I could keep posting links and say, "Clearly law enforcement are all racist bloodthirsty rapists. Law enforcement is not to be trusted." That is what you are doing in the climate change thread: posting a few cases of anecdotal evidence. It's silly.
Click to expand...

Linking this here. Now that I've rustled your jimmies I'm off to enjoy my Saturday night. Later
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,330
#5,330
BartW said:
Linking this here. Now that I've rustled your jimmies I'm off to enjoy my Saturday night. Later
Click to expand...

I'm not the one that went on a rampage and posted up like fifteen articles in a row. I am having a nice evening after watching the NCAA women's regional gymnastics meet and seeing you go bat**** crazy posting articles.

It does appear your Jimmies are far more rustled than your's truly. Kinda sucks when you get bested not only in the cop thread, but in your global warming thread too.

Toodles.
 
#5,331
#5,331
BartW said:
Yeah, water isn't considered a fundamental human right or anything. Let's give it all to Nestle! That will go over well.

Well what's done is done. Given our present state, what would be your solution to increasing freshwater scarcity moving forward?
Click to expand...

California's water infrastructure is 40 years old.

If water was a human right, groups like the Sierra Club wouldn't be allowed to bring lawsuits to stop the building of modern water infrastructure.

Desalination plants are the way to go, especially when all that ice melts off the poles. That stuff is going to make some fine drinking water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,332
#5,332
Grand Vol said:
I'm not the one that went on a rampage and posted up like fifteen articles in a row. I am having a nice evening after watching the NCAA women's regional gymnastics meet and seeing you go bat**** crazy posting articles.

It does appear your Jimmies are far more rustled than your's truly. Kinda sucks when you get bested not only in the cop thread, but in your global warming thread too.

Toodles.
Click to expand...
You weren’t watching Kentucky lose? How are my anecdotal articles any different than the links you’ve posted in this thread?

Yes my jimmies been rustled too. I’m not sure how many more ways we can show you the error of your argument.

1. Some scientist proposes wacky hypothesis (“doomsday prophecy”)
2. Bad idea is debunked by the rest of the scientific community
3. Therefore, the scientific community as a whole is untrustworthy.

It doesn’t make sense. Step 2 is how science advances. Those discarded hypotheses are not comparable with a robust, established theory endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,333
#5,333
BartW said:
science was wrong before
Click to expand...

Bump

Missing the point

The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives. Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them.

For example, take geocentrism. One of the strongest arguments against heliocentrism was the apparent lack of stellar parallax (or an apparent shift in the position of the stars from season to season). Because there was no evidence, Greek astronomers assumed either that the stars were fixed in the sky (geocentrism), or were so far away parallax was not noticeable. For almost 2000 years there was no evidence for parallax, and it was not until the 1800s that parallax was proven to be correct and geocentrism soundly quashed.

Another example: the quantum theory doesn't explain gravity, but it does not invalidate the Schrödinger equation or the quantisation of energy; it merely says that the current formulation of the theory is incomplete and there are modifications to quantum theory already being formulated, ready for when the next big leap in observational evidence occurs.

That science can be "wrong" in this way is a feature, not a bug, as one of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science builds upon itself, whereas pseudoscience rails on one claim and doesn't let up, despite evidence to the contrary. These pseudoscientists present "science" as a monolithic entity with no differentiation between different sciences and the uncertainties and overlaps associated with each field. For example, an economic study of the minimum wage that uses the scientific method cannot be replicated as easily as, say, a basic chemistry experiment that can be repeated in a lab - like finding the boiling point of a chemical. Thus, the economic study may not be "wrong," but has a lower degree of certainty attached to it than the chemistry experiment. Inability to make this distinction is often the result of the failure to think in a Bayesian fashion, in which the subtleties of errors are more accurately appreciated. Thus the "science was wrong before" argument conflates different types of errors within science, confusing incompleteness of theories with being outright wrong. This, as Isaac Asimov called it in his essay The Relativity of Wrong,[2] is a form of being wronger than wrong.

Basic logical flaws

But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at the even basic logical level. Frist, this phrase can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and that neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[3] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.

This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. (If hypotheses and theories which have been tested time and time again and been proven correct can be "wrong", what does that say about unproven, or even disproven, claims?) Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims, at all. But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!" If "science has been wrong", and this disproves the effectiveness of earwax, doubly does it disprove the effectiveness of ear candles.

For these reasons, "science was wrong before" is an objection that is not even wrong, and tends to be used as a last-ditch escape hatch when the crank has run out of concrete objections or talking points.

Failing at even being fallacious

Oftentimes, extremely factually-challenged (or intellectually dishonest) cranks will spin an urban legend, myth, or misinterpretation of a historical event as a case where "science was wrong before." These are cases where not only is the logic flawed, but the "examples" themselves are factually incorrect:
• "Science was wrong before" is often found alongside the Galileo gambit. The obvious problem here is that Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church, not by "science".
• In many cases, old theories were not proven wrong, but only shown to be incomplete. For example, the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't prove classical or Newtonian mechanics wrong, but it did show that classical mechanics did not hold true in every case.
• A common talking point among global warming deniers is the so-called prediction of "global cooling" in the 1970s. There were in fact scientists who argued for global cooling; however, a survey of the literature as a whole shows that the majority of papers published even back then argued for warming.[8][9]
• Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb is often invoked to handwave away any concerns about overpopulation or sometimes even all environmental issues.
• Anti-environmentalists in general love to abuse this gambit. Need to write a good bull**** tract on global warming? Dig up old denialist literature on any recent environmental problem (acid rain, DDT, ozone depletion, take your pick) and use it to announce that "science was wrong before." Anything by S. Fred Singer should do the trick.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,338
#5,338
MG1968 said:
commie? I'm not the 'tard who thinks mediamatters and thinkprogress are worthy of hotlinking.
Click to expand...
First they regulate your bumping, next they’ll come for your guns, and before you know it we’ll all be put in FEMA concentration camps.
MG1968 said:
California's water infrastructure is 40 years old.

If water was a human right, groups like the Sierra Club wouldn't be allowed to bring lawsuits to stop the building of modern water infrastructure.

Desalination plants are the way to go, especially when all that ice melts off the poles. That stuff is going to make some fine drinking water.
Click to expand...

Desalination is still extremely expensive, energy-intensive, and requires, you know, an ocean. The brine isn't great either. Desalination is a part of the future but it’s not solving our water shortages anytime soon.

I want to hear SandVol’s free market fundamentalist approach. How do we avoid depleting this crucial resource whilst averting regulation? Can you imagine a scenario where the government should get involved?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,340
#5,340
BartW said:
You weren’t watching Kentucky lose? How are my anecdotal articles any different than the links you’ve posted in this thread?

Yes my jimmies been rustled too. I’m not sure how many more ways we can show you the error of your argument.

1. Some scientist proposes wacky hypothesis (“doomsday prophecy”)
2. Bad idea is debunked by the rest of the scientific community
3. Therefore, the scientific community as a whole is untrustworthy.

It doesn’t make sense. Step 2 is how science advances. Those discarded hypotheses are not comparable with a robust, established theory endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
Click to expand...

I was working the regional comp. And I would have the choice between watching a bunch of sweaty dudes running around a basketball court or a bunch of fit college ladies that are way easier on the eyes doing some pretty amazing things.

Not a choice really.

Anyway, you yet again avoid the question. How can I take any predictions seriously when many have turned out wrong?

Can you point to any climate change predictions that have been proved right?
 
#5,341
#5,341
Grand Vol said:
I was working the regional comp. And I would have the choice between watching a bunch of sweaty dudes running around a basketball court or a bunch of fit college ladies that are way easier on the eyes doing some pretty amazing things.

Not a choice really.

Anyway, you yet again avoid the question. How can I take any predictions seriously when many have turned out wrong?

Can you point to any climate change predictions that have been proved right?
Click to expand...

It is manmade and you are a racist for not agreeing.
 
#5,342
#5,342
BartW said:
hqdefault.jpg


Yeah, water isn't considered a fundamental human right or anything. Let's give it all to Nestle! That will go over well.

Well what's done is done. Given our present state, what would be your solution to increasing freshwater scarcity moving forward?
Click to expand...

It isn't like this problem just popped up. But a free unfettered market would have been the most efficient way to solve this problem. I don't know what they do now. They are too far gone.
 
#5,343
#5,343
BartW said:
First they regulate your bumping, next they’ll come for your guns, and before you know it we’ll all be put in FEMA concentration camps.


Desalination is still extremely expensive, energy-intensive, and requires, you know, an ocean. The brine isn't great either. Desalination is a part of the future but it’s not solving our water shortages anytime soon.

I want to hear SandVol’s free market fundamentalist approach. How do we avoid depleting this crucial resource whilst averting regulation? Can you imagine a scenario where the government should get involved?
Click to expand...

If free enterprise owned the water they would have found a solution to this a long time ago. That is the way free enterprise is. They don't make money by not selling and distributing water. They are in it to make their customers happy so they can make more money. Governments don't care. If you want to know how this works look at utility companies, cable companies, phone companies. Do they ever run out of power, or bandwidth, or memory? Very rarely because they are innovative and forward thinking. Unlike governments. Right now there will be no quick fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,344
#5,344
Mega Droughts in the west are only going to get worse if you compare it to the past.
 

Attachments

  • westerndrought.jpg
    westerndrought.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 77
#5,345
#5,345
Definitely don't want to be living in the west for the next 500-600 years. Water is going to be expensive.
 
#5,346
#5,346
Grand Vol said:
I was working the regional comp. And I would have the choice between watching a bunch of sweaty dudes running around a basketball court or a bunch of fit college ladies that are way easier on the eyes doing some pretty amazing things.

Not a choice really.

Anyway, you yet again avoid the question. How can I take any predictions seriously when many have turned out wrong?

Can you point to any climate change predictions that have been proved right?
Click to expand...
Sure. Some notable ones include:

• Anthropogenic CO2 – We’ve witnessed an increase in atmospheric CO2 (specifically the isotope from fossil fuel combustion ) and decrease in O2
• Global warming -- surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, and ocean heat content have all increased from fossil fuel combustion (predicted over 100 years ago)
• Stratospheric cooling – the stratosphere and upper atmosphere are cooling
• Rising tropopause – the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere is rising
• Decreasing diurnal temperature range – the planet has been warming more at night than during the day
• Arctic amplification – temperatures have been increasing faster at high latitudes than low latitudes
• Increasing downward IR radiation and decreasing outward IR radiation
• Increasing atmospheric H2O (and thereby increasing the water vapor greenhouse effect)
• Arctic sea ice is melting (faster than IPCC projections)
• Sea level is rising (faster than IPCC projections) and seawater is intruding into freshwater
• Sea level rise (and melting permafrost, decreasing sea ice) is increasing coastal erosion and coastal flooding
• Weakening thermohaline circulation
• Increasing drought and wildfires in the Western US

The list goes on. Now can you finally provide an example of a phony environmental doomsday prediction endorsed by the majority of the scientific community? Or will you just keep playing this game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,347
#5,347
Sandvol said:
Right now there will be no quick fix.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether water privatization would have been better, today we’re consuming water at an unsustainable rate. Do you think the government will be justified in implementing further water restrictions if trends continue?

I’m testing your unfettered free market utopia. Will you admit there is a role for government in such issues?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,349
#5,349
BartW said:
Sure. Some notable ones include:

• Anthropogenic CO2 – We’ve witnessed an increase in atmospheric CO2 (specifically the isotope from fossil fuel combustion ) and decrease in O2
• Global warming -- surface temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, and ocean heat content have all increased from fossil fuel combustion (predicted over 100 years ago)
• Stratospheric cooling – the stratosphere and upper atmosphere are cooling
• Rising tropopause – the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere is rising
• Decreasing diurnal temperature range – the planet has been warming more at night than during the day
• Arctic amplification – temperatures have been increasing faster at high latitudes than low latitudes
• Increasing downward IR radiation and decreasing outward IR radiation
• Increasing atmospheric H2O (and thereby increasing the water vapor greenhouse effect)
• Arctic sea ice is melting (faster than IPCC projections)
• Sea level is rising (faster than IPCC projections) and seawater is intruding into freshwater
• Sea level rise (and melting permafrost, decreasing sea ice) is increasing coastal erosion and coastal flooding
• Weakening thermohaline circulation
• Increasing drought and wildfires in the Western US

The list goes on. Now can you finally provide an example of a phony environmental doomsday prediction endorsed by the majority of the scientific community? Or will you just keep playing this game?
Click to expand...

You of course can cite all these instances? I mean, you aren't the only one allowed to demand proof.

And how many of these are scientific observations as opposed to predictions?
 
#5,350
#5,350
The cost of water will go up to reflect it's demand, and somebody will provide desalination.

Edit: Nuclear powered desalination, two birds one stone.
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top