Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility
18 Nov 2013, 12:10 pm
Declension wrote:
I think that some people go too far with their rejection of "appeal to authority".
That's the great thing about Mathematics. Ideally, there is no appeal to authority in Mathematics. You should never be surprised when someone with a background primarily in Mathematics prefers to look at other fields from a fresh prospective instead of just regurgitating what someone else said.
18 Nov 2013, 12:15 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
eric76 wrote:
I used to be concerned about Global Warming. But the more I read about it, the less things fit together. What I saw was not science, but politics claiming to be science to scare people in order to push an agenda.
Some (fringe) political groups have jumped on the science, but mostly it has been politicised by the deniers- the right wings of the Republican and Conservative parties that are generally ignorant of science and opposed to restrictions on industry. Those groups have much bigger impacts than the Green Party of either the US or the UK.
It is the climate change denial that is politics rather than science.
For what it's worth, I'm as aggravated by a great many of the arguments from both extremes of the issue. It is those extremes that take it out of the realm of science.
Quote:
Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, both Global Warming and Carl Sagan's nuclear winter from oil fires are pretty much the same thing -- environmentalists making so-called "scientific" claims of disaster in order to push their agenda. And that is alarmism.
So anyone who thinks that Global Warming Is A Thing is an alarmist?
If that is not your opinion, I wish to congratulate you on not answering either of my questions.
Nope. But those who use Global Warming to push for bigger government to force huge changes "right now" to combat the "problem" are certainly alarmists. They aren't interested in the science, but in the agenda.
18 Nov 2013, 12:59 pm
Schneekugel wrote:
Quote:
I used to be concerned about Global Warming. But the more I read about it, the less things fit together. What I saw was not science, but politics claiming to be science to scare people in order to push an agenda.
As an engineer of environmental development, I think at least I might have some ressources to see difference between politically motivated announcement and scientific ones.
What is statistical truth by measurement and physical laws, is that average temperature of earth is rising, and that more CO2 in the air leads to the earth heating up. That goes as well to scientific knowledge about heat energy from sun being affected by CO2 just as ice, rock and ... tons of other probes have proven, that whenever the air had an averagely higher concentration of CO2, as well the temperature was in average rising. (Dont mismatch that with supercatastrophes, blowing tons of smoke and CO2 AND smoke AND dirt into the air, which leaded to short supercold areas.)
While not a scientific journal by any means, Forbes is usually pretty reliable. From http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/:
Quote:
New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.
NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.
NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.
This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.
Quote:
When someone tells you about "the truth what a certain area will be like in 25 years" then thats nonsense. Our climate is affected by so much different influences, that good specialists can give pretty good estimations, but telling 100% what will be is prophesying.
And who are the ones telling us how it is going to get so bad? That's right -- the Global Warming alarmists.
Quote:
What IS a fact, that an raising of average earth temperature will have an effect, so its physical law, that if you put energy into an existing system, then the system will be affected.
It would certainly be normal to expect a change in the equilibrium of the system. That doesn't mean that it is going to spin out of control.
Quote:
The general problems of changes (anyway if to getting more colder or getting more hotter in an certain area,) is that our agrar culture is highly specialized. An wheat farmer, may have an tractor he can use for different kind of works, but tons of other gears and machines he owns, will be specialized on wheat or even an certain kind of wheat. Same goes for potatoe farmers, asparagus farmers, .... Change of climate simply sucks for these, because unlike 2 centuries ago, where you rarely had specified tools, you cant tell yourself that easily anymore "Oh this year I will try something else." To change your farming specialization, is horribly expensive, as well as you cant relie on your own experiences anymore, so because of lack of experience it is as well more likely to have some bad years in the beginning. This causes problems to food industry, and because of us all eating, this is affecting us all.
That's hardly an issue.
Even with the rates projected by the alarmists, climate is not going to change so in the vast majority of the world fast that the equipment a farmer buys is going to be outdated by Global Warming before it is a pile of junk.
Quote:
It can affect as well us everyday people, when it comes to desicions about where to build your house. Cities and villages normally have records, about calamities and "catastrophes" as floods, sliding hillsides, avalanches... so there are normally experiences, where building a house will be averagely safe, while other places might be used for agrar culture or similar, but not for stuff, that is hardly removable or replacable. That affected as well stuff like typical european insurances against housedamages. Weather changes lead as well to these statistics and knowledge no longer being as useful as before. Which is simply sh***y for any kind of landowners.
In a great many parts of the world, houses are not expected to last so long that they will still be standing by the time sea level rises enough to affect them. The reason I would hesitate to buy an ocean front property in many areas would be because of the potential for tsunami, not because of a fear that the ocean will suddenly rise so much as to make it uninhabitable.
Quote:
As well that any change of climate, is as well a "fit"-test for animals living in an area. If an area gets wetter, then the animals living in that area have to do an fit test. Getting wetter may not sound that horrible, as getting hotter, but wet weather favors as example existence of funghals, which are as example a risc for bee colonies, frogs, ...
Try to grow a crop when you get one to two inches of rain in a year. We've had years around here in which the ground was so dry that the wheat the farmers planted never even sprouted unless they used irrigation.
Quote:
Because of earth changing since its existence, there regularly have been such fit tests... the problem is, that we know force many different fit tests on animals and plants at once. One fit test normally is not that hard... so when it comes to weather getting wetter, and fungals being favored, then there might be tons of frogs dying because of that, but because of natural variety, there normally will be some exemplar of an species, having immunity against that or the ability to move in another neighborhood. So there will be a sudden drop of numbers of an certain animals, but after some generation, it can be normalized again. The problem is that our industrialization forces right now tons of "fit"-tests on certain species. So its not about finding the few exemplars being fit to the weather getting wetter: But to being wetter, being able to handle agrar chemikals being used in his neighborhood, being able to handle destruction of natural habitats, being able to compete with the accidentally imported animal from another continent, ...
Keep in mind that Global Warming is relatively slow from our frame of reference. In most cases, the areas in which specific animals will slowly move rather than suddenly.
Quote:
The more drop out conditions, a species must fulfill and solve at once, the more complicated it gets. So people telling you that earth will become a lifeless desert is nonsense. Because just as specialization has become a specialty for many kind of animals, there are as well universal-animals, that specialized on being "not physically specialized". Like crows, cockroaches, rats, wolfs, .... Animals that are able to live all around the globus, will hardly be wiped out, because of an area of the globus, becoming more like another area of an globus. But for specialized animals the amount of fit tests are bad, because maybe 5% of an certain insect will have resistance against a funghal caused by more wet weather, and from these surviving 5%, that could theoretically re-culture an area, again only 5% might be resistant against a certain pesticide, until the number gets so few, that they can be wiped out easily. Animals are able to adjust to changes, but therefore need time to repopulate again with the more resistant species. If they must face another fit test, before they had time to repopulate again, by statistic the number of animals with a different gen variety decreases, and so their ability to withstand changes and repopulate.
Someone telling you what exactly is going to happen in 25 years is a prophet. But to say, that climate changes, cause in general problems for specialized agrar industry, are an additional stress factor for flora and fauna, and will lead us to facing situations we have not experienced and so cause problem, is absolutely ok. Problems must not mean "horrible catastrophe" but as example we faced in the last centuries heat waves in summer, that our farmers were not used to. Its not the ultimate catastrophe, leading to my country getting a desert, because we have lots of water ressources, that simply were not needed before for fields, because of it before raining every few days. But getting water supply for ALL our fields, that before did not use them, simply causes costs to our farmers, that they cant afford alone, and need as well infrastructure done therefore. So a part of that must be carried by taxes, and as well draining a complete countries fields isnt done overnight, so until this is done, there will be crop failures regularly, leading to rising prices for food. Because of that rising food costs, are in my country, actually the most important index factor for inflation during the last years. Or malaria that is now coming into my country from italy. Its not horrific, and it can be dealt with, but still its harder for my people, because of them not having acchieved an natural resistance against malaria over centuries, so people being affected by malaria, often endure worse symptoms then typical. Just as I did not know, what german people, had for problems with the ticks, that are typical for my area. Ok, they are a bit annoying and force you to get an vaccination because of them carrying a nerve-disease, but thats normally not that horrible. The problem simply is, because of them not being used to ticks, many that are bitten get infections that are in my country, very rare and are described as "allergy", but not as standard. When I get regularly bitten by a tick, I have a scratchy little red spot, not an one inch high crate that is festering. ^^
Nothing of that is "the total end of the world", but everything of that causes simply needless problems, that must be dealt with. If that problem were caused by necessary stuff, noone would be talking about it, but most of that problems are caused by needless capitalism and consume, and there is definitely nothing bad about questioning that.
Someone telling you what exactly is going to happen in 25 years is a prophet. But to say, that climate changes, cause in general problems for specialized agrar industry, are an additional stress factor for flora and fauna, and will lead us to facing situations we have not experienced and so cause problem, is absolutely ok. Problems must not mean "horrible catastrophe" but as example we faced in the last centuries heat waves in summer, that our farmers were not used to. Its not the ultimate catastrophe, leading to my country getting a desert, because we have lots of water ressources, that simply were not needed before for fields, because of it before raining every few days. But getting water supply for ALL our fields, that before did not use them, simply causes costs to our farmers, that they cant afford alone, and need as well infrastructure done therefore. So a part of that must be carried by taxes, and as well draining a complete countries fields isnt done overnight, so until this is done, there will be crop failures regularly, leading to rising prices for food. Because of that rising food costs, are in my country, actually the most important index factor for inflation during the last years. Or malaria that is now coming into my country from italy. Its not horrific, and it can be dealt with, but still its harder for my people, because of them not having acchieved an natural resistance against malaria over centuries, so people being affected by malaria, often endure worse symptoms then typical. Just as I did not know, what german people, had for problems with the ticks, that are typical for my area. Ok, they are a bit annoying and force you to get an vaccination because of them carrying a nerve-disease, but thats normally not that horrible. The problem simply is, because of them not being used to ticks, many that are bitten get infections that are in my country, very rare and are described as "allergy", but not as standard. When I get regularly bitten by a tick, I have a scratchy little red spot, not an one inch high crate that is festering. ^^
Nothing of that is "the total end of the world", but everything of that causes simply needless problems, that must be dealt with. If that problem were caused by necessary stuff, noone would be talking about it, but most of that problems are caused by needless capitalism and consume, and there is definitely nothing bad about questioning that.
It is far easier to talk about changes that may cause limited problems at some point in the future than changes that create much greater opportunity since it is easier to look around and say "what happens if we lose this?" than it is to look around and say "what happens if we gain that?" On the one hand you are looking at a potential loss but it has a feeling of being meaningful because you can see what it is now. On the other hand, you are looking at gains but since you are used to seeing it at present, the prospect for those gains is not obvious.
18 Nov 2013, 1:05 pm
Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Stargazer43 wrote:
Even if the climate models are in fact horribly wrong and global warming is a massive hoax propagated by the elitist liberal media...when upwards of 95% of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying climate change are in full agreement over it's cause, and all data seems to arrive at the same conclusion, would it not be prudent to take the conservative approach of reducing emissions, rather than fight and bicker over the validity of tree ring data for the next 50 years? (after which it may be too late to make any changes). We have the technology available to dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels, it just requires a large upfront investment (and one that will likely pay off in the future, even for reasons completely irrespective of global warming).
The eco phreaks want us to take an oath of poverty and freeze our asses of in the winter.
ruveyn
If we just warmed up to using nuclear power then we can have our cake and eat it. We would be able to use an even better source of energy without emitting any of those greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and plus we would be healthier with cleaner air to breathe on top of it. There would be no need to take a vow of poverty. Unfortunately, many eco-activists do not like the nuclear option either, despite the fact that it would be necessary to achieve what they want.
To their credit, there are some who would now accept nuclear power, but a great many would remain opposed. I think that they have some kind of notion of an ideal world where man lives without needing to use energy that does not come from natural sources without considering the real problems involved.
For example, it would be interesting to see the return of sailing ships hauling cargo and passengers over long distances, but I'd sure hate to have to pay the cost of sailing on those ships or paying what it would cost to ship the cargo on them.
18 Nov 2013, 1:09 pm
mikassyna wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
Because just as specialization has become a specialty for many kind of animals, there are as well universal-animals, that specialized on being "not physically specialized". Like crows, cockroaches, rats, wolfs, .... Animals that are able to live all around the globus, will hardly be wiped out, because of an area of the globus, becoming more like another area of an globus. But for specialized animals the amount of fit tests are bad
I really, really hate roaches but damn, they are awesome. They don't have a good evolutinary resistance to shoes, however.
One nice thing about where I live is that cockroaches are quite rare. There are reportedly a few houses around the county that have infestations that were accidentally imported from other ares. With the summer heat, the winter cold, and the distances between houses out in the country, they don't seem very adept at infesting neighboring houses and farms.
The first time I ever saw a cockroach was when I was 18 years old at college. When I asked what that was, I got some awfully funny looks.
18 Nov 2013, 1:14 pm
mikassyna wrote:
Schneekugel wrote:
Nothing of that is "the total end of the world", but everything of that causes simply needless problems, that must be dealt with. If that problem were caused by necessary stuff, noone would be talking about it, but most of that problems are caused by needless capitalism and consume, and there is definitely nothing bad about questioning that.
Schnee, I really enjoyed your well-thought out and detailed explanations. I do have a problem with greed if the accumulation of wealth has been made with dishonest means, but I don't have a problem with the global system in general based on hard work and merit. It is through technology and science that we have made the advancements in vaccinations (please do not turn this into a diatribe of vaccines causing autism, people!), advances in medicine and dentistry, computers, communications, etc., that have wrought incredible benefits to humankind and many, many other species. I would venture to say that the benefits are pretty profound in the grand scheme of things. These advances that could not have been made without a viable energy source.
I don't think that these great advantages in the human condition would have been possible, at least not without enormously longer time periods, if it were not for Capitalism.
18 Nov 2013, 1:19 pm
Schneekugel wrote:
Just when it comes to that actual yuppieh food trend of decorating food with small gold particles and eating that.
As I understand it, it wasn't that unusual in places like India for the wealthiest to put gold and silver leaf on food for special occasions.
I hadn't realized that it had become more widespread, but then I pay little attention to fads.
18 Nov 2013, 1:46 pm
@eric76 When it comes to average temperatures, you should care as well for the sea temperatures. Air is a rather bad heat-store, while water stores heat temperatures pretty well. As well that when it comes to the dropout for flora and fauna you are only focusing on the climate change, but the problem, as I mentioned is not one single drop out, that lifeforms are normally able to deal with, but that actually we face a great amount of drop outs on our environment. Industrialization is cause of much, much more. By increasing our mobility, it lets us influence and settle in more areas. Worldwide transportation leaded to crosstransportation of animals and plants. Modern agrar culture involves tons of chemicals.
The reasons why biologists and similar favor the solution about "seeing what we can loose" about "seeing what might be acchieved" is that we are actually not able to see. Someone telling you to see what can be acchieved is actually dont have sufficient knowledge to predict what could be, because even our knowledge about what actually is, is pretty bad. While there are hardly any question left about big animals, small flora and fauna still is not sufficiently researched, even in common areas. Often when you research an actual starting problem, you find in the end an enormous various of links leading to that. So when a certain crop art on an mediterrian island, did not spread anymore, it was researched why: In the end an insect was responsible for the "sex" (sorry, dont know the word, so the transportation of DNA material, leading the plant to acchieve fruits), the insect was not existing anymore, because of an invasive art of ant, being by ship colonised on the island, that was able to attack the insect, unlike other ants, because of the insect having a "cloaking-chemical" as defensive mechanism effective against origin ants of that island, but not against that foreign kind. Needed tons of research to find that out...and brings us the problem of "Ok, and what are we going to do about i now?" Croach around the island and starting to plug every ant, analyze it under microscrope, and delete the ones we dont want? O_o
If we had superduper knowledge like an computer expert, that was involved into programming in OS system, you can effectively relie on "What can I do, to optimize my system, and make it work better for me?" and that will work great.
The problem is, that we are more like 70 year old computer noobs, that hardly got their PC running for E-mails and a bit of internet surfing, with an system that is actually already affected by half a dozend of viruses and from experiences, every s**t you do without a clue, has lead in the past to the system running more bad.
Scientists would love to have the knowledge that would let them to be able to think, about how optimizing systems. ^^ But right now, they actually work with the "Oh god, never change a running system. At least its running." credo. Riscing that, until further knowledge is acchieved, shouldnt be done for every little advantage possible like saving some money for cleaning ship tanks, by simply emptying the ballast tanks into open water, instead of clearing it in ship-havens, where "foreign contaminated" water could be cleansed properly.
And about the houses stuff: I did not write anything about sea level. Floods, avalanches, mountain slides, the things I mentioned, are things that can accure everywhere, where rain comes down and that isnt as plain as hungary.
18 Nov 2013, 2:14 pm
I just want to say that I am really enjoying this potentially heated discussion. For the most part (spare a couple of jabs), people have remained really civilized and have not resorted to low blows I have seen in many other forums trying to debate the same topic. We've managed to state our divergent views without getting into personal attacks. I love this place. You peeps are awesome 
18 Nov 2013, 4:44 pm
Jono wrote:
If we just warmed up to using nuclear power then we can have our cake and eat it. We would be able to use an even better source of energy without emitting any of those greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and plus we would be healthier with cleaner air to breathe on top of it. There would be no need to take a vow of poverty. Unfortunately, many eco-activists do not like the nuclear option either, despite the fact that it would be necessary to achieve what they want.
That is what I keep telling people. Pave the U.S, east to west and north to south with breeder and thorium reactors. Inside of a decade the only thing will will need oil for is to pay plastics and other polymers.
We can disengage from the middle east and tell the Sheiks of Araby to go f*ck their camels.
ruveyn
18 Nov 2013, 6:17 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:
If we just warmed up to using nuclear power then we can have our cake and eat it. We would be able to use an even better source of energy without emitting any of those greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and plus we would be healthier with cleaner air to breathe on top of it. There would be no need to take a vow of poverty. Unfortunately, many eco-activists do not like the nuclear option either, despite the fact that it would be necessary to achieve what they want.
That is what I keep telling people. Pave the U.S, east to west and north to south with breeder and thorium reactors. Inside of a decade the only thing will will need oil for is to pay plastics and other polymers.
We can disengage from the middle east and tell the Sheiks of Araby to go f*ck their camels.
ruveyn
So you are in favor a this big government solution but not the regulation of carbon?
18 Nov 2013, 6:20 pm
mikassyna wrote:
I agree, HOWEVER...
On the other hand, in the big scheme of things, these crappy (materialistic) values are what keep much of our society from killing each other out of sheer boredom.
Many years ago it used to be religion.
Before that, people just died from being unable to survive the seasons, not having medicines, or enough food.
I am not going to buy into the idea that burning fossil fuels will send us back hundreds or thousands of years. If anything, the earth's dynamic systems could care less about us and if it is going purge us, it will do it regardless of how many fuels we burn or not.
I know that most businesses, regardless of whether farming or NASA, they all utilize computers which have made their lives and businesses a helluva lot easier in so many ways. And, those computer businesses making technological advances depend on consumers keeping them in business long enough to actually make even better advances in microprocessing. Apple opening its OS to anyone who can develop a software program has kept many people not only entertained, but part of the evolving advancements in computing. Who would have thought touch screens would exist a mere 20 years ago? I remember when the internet first came out and it was a 8kb connection which turned to a celebration when it became 14kb, then 28kb, and so on. I ran up hundreds of dollars in internet connections PER MONTH going into AOL chatroms which I don't have to spend now, thanks to advances in technology. Things change! And when they don't, that's when the real problems begin!
If you want people to simply be raised to have better values, that is a whole other topic altogether!
On the other hand, in the big scheme of things, these crappy (materialistic) values are what keep much of our society from killing each other out of sheer boredom.
Many years ago it used to be religion.
Before that, people just died from being unable to survive the seasons, not having medicines, or enough food.
I am not going to buy into the idea that burning fossil fuels will send us back hundreds or thousands of years. If anything, the earth's dynamic systems could care less about us and if it is going purge us, it will do it regardless of how many fuels we burn or not.
I know that most businesses, regardless of whether farming or NASA, they all utilize computers which have made their lives and businesses a helluva lot easier in so many ways. And, those computer businesses making technological advances depend on consumers keeping them in business long enough to actually make even better advances in microprocessing. Apple opening its OS to anyone who can develop a software program has kept many people not only entertained, but part of the evolving advancements in computing. Who would have thought touch screens would exist a mere 20 years ago? I remember when the internet first came out and it was a 8kb connection which turned to a celebration when it became 14kb, then 28kb, and so on. I ran up hundreds of dollars in internet connections PER MONTH going into AOL chatroms which I don't have to spend now, thanks to advances in technology. Things change! And when they don't, that's when the real problems begin!
If you want people to simply be raised to have better values, that is a whole other topic altogether!
Technology will save us, all hail technology!
But seriously we would have to have alternatives working on a large scale already, otherwise the energy crunch is going to make a bad time for a lot of people, and it's already started. And there is precious little awareness of the problem, much less smart investment in the infrastructure we need.
18 Nov 2013, 6:42 pm
AspE wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:
If we just warmed up to using nuclear power then we can have our cake and eat it. We would be able to use an even better source of energy without emitting any of those greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and plus we would be healthier with cleaner air to breathe on top of it. There would be no need to take a vow of poverty. Unfortunately, many eco-activists do not like the nuclear option either, despite the fact that it would be necessary to achieve what they want.
That is what I keep telling people. Pave the U.S, east to west and north to south with breeder and thorium reactors. Inside of a decade the only thing will will need oil for is to pay plastics and other polymers.
We can disengage from the middle east and tell the Sheiks of Araby to go f*ck their camels.
ruveyn
So you are in favor a this big government solution but not the regulation of carbon?
The reactors should be built and owned by businesses, not the government.
18 Nov 2013, 8:13 pm
eric76 wrote:
Declension wrote:
I think that some people go too far with their rejection of "appeal to authority".
That's the great thing about Mathematics. Ideally, there is no appeal to authority in Mathematics. You should never be surprised when someone with a background primarily in Mathematics prefers to look at other fields from a fresh prospective instead of just regurgitating what someone else said.
Mathematics is not a science.
