or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Nail in the AGW Coffin - Page 6

post #201 of 244

Begging the question regarding absolute control.

Slippery slope going beyond commercial and industrial.

Non sequitur regarding history.

A dash of red herring and weasel words, too, for extra measure.

 

Wow, that's a logical fallacy clusterfuck you've got there.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #202 of 244

Aww, I was hoping you'd use all caps and call me an Iron Man of magical thinking this time.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #203 of 244

I was hoping you'd stop making logical fallacies and stop living in a fantasy world.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #204 of 244

A fantasy world like one in which the entire planet's climate is controlled by regulating the emission of a single trace gas?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #205 of 244

Ignorance it is then.  Go learn what the science actually is before you perpetuate this lousy thread with your misconceptions.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #206 of 244

Mission accomplished, BR. Mission accomplished.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #207 of 244

You learned the science that quickly?  You will cease using logical fallacies attempting to claim that humans exhaling CO2 is somehow relevant to global climate change?  That's my mission, Jazz.  I want people to learn and grow.  I want people to stop using faulty reasoning to battle against reality, however futile that may be.  I want the angry, vocal, scientifically illiterate crowd to stop attempting to steer this ship into the rocks (all while shouting rocks don't exist).

 

So, if you have truly dropped the anti-science agenda, then my mission was accomplished.  I have a feeling you didn't mean the same thing, though.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #208 of 244

If that truly is your mission, you've failed miserably.

 

You don't sway people to your views by engaging in ad-hominem attacks, personally insulting them, attacking their deeply held beliefs, and derailing threads. You may sandwich factual, useful information in between insults, but the delivery is what's preventing me and others from taking you seriously.

 

You can share your viewpoint without resorting to these shameful tactics. When you do so, people might actually want to listen to what you have to say. Will everyone believe as you do? No. But they may at least understand where you're coming from and respect you if you can converse in a civil manner.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #209 of 244

I'm sorry that you it makes you uncomfortable to have your deeply held beliefs scrutinized.  Welcome to the world of scientific inquiry.  Questioning everything is part of the game.  Altering one's conclusions to adjust to new information is fundamental.  Your posts in this thread and other similar ones demonstrate that you hold onto a preconceived notion and cherry pick anything you can to attempt to support it--without considering the veracity or validity of said sources.  You make a myriad of logical fallacies and demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding the sciences you criticize.  

 

In short, your behavior in these global climate change threads have been literally ridiculous--actually deserving of ridicule.  There's a wealth of trustworthy information out there if you would bother to seek it out.  Instead, you let your confirmation bias run completely wild.  That awful, deceitful tabloid article you posted is a prime example.  You still haven't explained why you posted it.  It really does look like you saw a juicy headline and tripped over yourself to instantly post it, without any regard to its validity or honesty.  

 

Regardless of how you feel I deliver the message, the message still stands--you and people like you are on the wrong side of history.  Stop claiming it's still a duck.  It's not.  The evidence is not on your side.

 

http://i.imgur.com/q4tUt.jpg

 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #210 of 244

Good luck with your mission, BR.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #211 of 244

No, I wish you luck in breaking the shackles of dogma that restrain and addle your potentially powerful mind.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #212 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #213 of 244

Back to spamming links without commentary.  Why did you post this article?  How do you know it is factual?  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #214 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

False.  There is plenty of oil.  In fact, oil may not even be a finite resource.   

Yup but the amount of energy spent to extract that oil is going to exceed what you get. So, the end of cheap oil, definitely, the end of oil, very likely.

Oh and yeah oil not a finite resource. What, it's antimatter now or something? A physical object on Earth is now infinite? Hmm... and global warming is a fantasy.
post #215 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Anyway, back on topic:

Climate Was Warmer 1000 and 2000 Years Ago

Dude that's not the issue. It's the warming this past century correlating with CO2.

Talk about dead horses. I'm done here tonight. Enjoy da iPad 7"!
post #216 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

A fantasy world like one in which the entire planet's climate is controlled by regulating the emission of a single trace gas?

Right. CO2 is a "trace" gas? Doesn't seem too "trace" and unimportant to me...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
post #217 of 244

One question I have for those who are convinced about man made global warming...  According to the data from the Wiki link CO2 has gone up by something like 40% over the past 100 or so years.  Shouldn't we have seen a more dramatic temperature increase than the .6C or whatever the number is for the past 100 or so years?  I'm actually fairly agnostic on this particular issue, though I lean toward not believing the global warming argument.  The biggest reason I have for doubt is that there are still planetary systems/cycles that we don't know enough about and how those impact global climate as well as similar lack of knowledge regarding that giant fusion reactor in the sky.  That said, we know a LOT more about these things today than we did 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago and I think we will continue to advance that knowledge.  However, I'm afraid that for the foreseeable future the sheer complexity of our global climate makes this science at least somewhat skeptical.

post #218 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

One question I have for those who are convinced about man made global warming...  According to the data from the Wiki link CO2 has gone up by something like 40% over the past 100 or so years.  Shouldn't we have seen a more dramatic temperature increase than the .6C or whatever the number is for the past 100 or so years?  I'm actually fairly agnostic on this particular issue, though I lean toward not believing the global warming argument.  The biggest reason I have for doubt is that there are still planetary systems/cycles that we don't know enough about and how those impact global climate as well as similar lack of knowledge regarding that giant fusion reactor in the sky.  That said, we know a LOT more about these things today than we did 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago and I think we will continue to advance that knowledge.  However, I'm afraid that for the foreseeable future the sheer complexity of our global climate makes this science at least somewhat skeptical.

 

The short answer:  No.  Why?  Because C02 does not cause warming, at least in the sense it doesn't predicate it. C02 levels historically lag warming.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #219 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

The short answer:  No.  Why?  Because C02 does not cause warming, at least in the sense it doesn't predicate it. C02 levels historically lag warming.   

 

So you are saying that we are warm now and have been warm or warming for a while, right?  Does that mean that we are on the cusp of another cooling period or possibly even a mini ice age?

 

I'd love to see the research/evidence that supports your claim.  I'm not arguing here, just curious.

post #220 of 244

Some interesting assertions and misunderstandings cropping up in this discussion:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

A fantasy world like one in which the entire planet's climate is controlled by regulating the emission of a single trace gas?

Right. CO2 is a "trace" gas? Doesn't seem too "trace" and unimportant to me...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

 

Agreed - to state that a trace gas concentration cannot have a significant effect on climate is to misunderstand the stability of complex systems. It is entirely possible that such an effect could exist, although it is not yet proven (IMO). Just as a related example, consider atmospheric ozone, which overall is present in the bulk of the atmosphere at far lower concentrations than CO2 (by a factor of 500 or so at less than 1 ppm) and even in the ozone layer at less than 10 ppm. Despite that, it plays a critical role in regulating UV irradiation at ground level, and without it the earth would not support life as we know it. What we don't know is how stable the climate is to variations in CO2 level; we know that it is a "greenhouse" gas, in that it partially inhibits planetary radiative cooling, but we don't really know how self-correcting the system is. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

One question I have for those who are convinced about man made global warming...  According to the data from the Wiki link CO2 has gone up by something like 40% over the past 100 or so years.  Shouldn't we have seen a more dramatic temperature increase than the .6C or whatever the number is for the past 100 or so years?  I'm actually fairly agnostic on this particular issue, though I lean toward not believing the global warming argument.  The biggest reason I have for doubt is that there are still planetary systems/cycles that we don't know enough about and how those impact global climate as well as similar lack of knowledge regarding that giant fusion reactor in the sky.  That said, we know a LOT more about these things today than we did 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago and I think we will continue to advance that knowledge.  However, I'm afraid that for the foreseeable future the sheer complexity of our global climate makes this science at least somewhat skeptical.

 

The short answer:  No.  Why?  Because C02 does not cause warming, at least in the sense it doesn't predicate it. C02 levels historically lag warming.   

 

That's possibly true, but potentially misleading. In the past we have not had a significant independent source of CO2. Increases in level followed warming primarily, I believe, because the major reservoir of CO2 is the oceans, and because gas solubility in water is a fairly strong inverse function of temperature. As a result, when temperatures rose due to other factors, the oceans became warmer and more CO2 came out of solution. Whether that produced a temporary positive feedback cycle is part of the debate, but either way, the observation itself does not prove, or even provide evidence for the assertion that CO2 itself is not a factor to cause warming.

 

As to whether the rise that we may have observed is large enough given the rise in CO2 levels, if CO2 is the culprit - we don't know, because we don't fully understand the entire system. But, it is most unlikely to be a simple linear effect, if it is occurring.

post #221 of 244

They have been told many times about this positive feedback cycle between CO2 and temperature, with temperature often leading the CO2 released from the oceans causing more heating and more CO2 being released--they just don't give a shit.  They trot out the same tired fucking misunderstandings over and over and over again.  It's in one ear, out the other.  The willful ignorance is absolutely maddening.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #222 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

They have been told many times about this positive feedback cycle between CO2 and temperature, with temperature often leading the CO2 released from the oceans causing more heating and more CO2 being released--they just don't give a shit.  They trot out the same tired fucking misunderstandings over and over and over again.  It's in one ear, out the other.  The willful ignorance is absolutely maddening.

 

And you keep trotting out that same theory.  That's all the feedback loop is...a theory.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #223 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

They have been told many times about this positive feedback cycle between CO2 and temperature, with temperature often leading the CO2 released from the oceans causing more heating and more CO2 being released--they just don't give a shit.  They trot out the same tired fucking misunderstandings over and over and over again.  It's in one ear, out the other.  The willful ignorance is absolutely maddening.

 

And you keep trotting out that same theory.  That's all the feedback loop is...a theory.  

 

Actually it's technically a hypothesis, but no matter. As a testable hypothesis it has neither been disproved nor supplanted by a more attractive hypothesis, so skepticism is indicated, but why do you reject it out of hand?

post #224 of 244

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the academic literature on the CO2 feedback loop.  You have to be careful with deniers with the words you select.  If you say skepticism is indicated, it gets interpreted as "AGCC is a hoax!"

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #225 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the academic literature on the CO2 feedback loop.  You have to be careful with deniers with the words you select.  If you say skepticism is indicated, it gets interpreted as "AGCC is a hoax!"

 

If you were talking to me - I'm not dismissing it at all - I'm just not sure that the evidence is conclusive yet. Point taken on the use of "skepticism". I meant it in the scientific sense.

post #226 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Actually it's technically a hypothesis, but no matter. As a testable hypothesis it has neither been disproved nor supplanted by a more attractive hypothesis, so skepticism is indicated, but why do you reject it out of hand?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the academic literature on the CO2 feedback loop.  You have to be careful with deniers with the words you select.  If you say skepticism is indicated, it gets interpreted as "AGCC is a hoax!"

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you were talking to me - I'm not dismissing it at all - I'm just not sure that the evidence is conclusive yet. Point taken on the use of "skepticism". I meant it in the scientific sense.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not dismissing it out of hand, though it probably read like that.  I'm saying it's unproven.  As for skepticism, BR is all for that as long as it's not on the issue of anthropogenic global warming.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #227 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Actually it's technically a hypothesis, but no matter. As a testable hypothesis it has neither been disproved nor supplanted by a more attractive hypothesis, so skepticism is indicated, but why do you reject it out of hand?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the academic literature on the CO2 feedback loop.  You have to be careful with deniers with the words you select.  If you say skepticism is indicated, it gets interpreted as "AGCC is a hoax!"

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you were talking to me - I'm not dismissing it at all - I'm just not sure that the evidence is conclusive yet. Point taken on the use of "skepticism". I meant it in the scientific sense.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not dismissing it out of hand, though it probably read like that.  I'm saying it's unproven.  As for skepticism, BR is all for that as long as it's not on the issue of anthropogenic global warming.  

 

It did read like that - you said that it was not happening. I absolutely agree that it is unproven, but given the extreme difficulty of proving it due to the system complexity and timescales involved, and the unfortunate possibility that by the time it is proven it may be too late to fix the problem, it is not unreasonable to consider what we might do to mitigate its effects in case it turns out to be correct. If it is incorrect there will end up having been some unnecessary economic impact, but no other harm done. If it is correct then we may have saved the world from a catastrophic climate change.

post #228 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It did read like that - you said that it was not happening. I absolutely agree that it is unproven, but given the extreme difficulty of proving it due to the system complexity and timescales involved, and the unfortunate possibility that by the time it is proven it may be too late to fix the problem, it is not unreasonable to consider what we might do to mitigate its effects in case it turns out to be correct. If it is incorrect there will end up having been some unnecessary economic impact, but no other harm done. If it is correct then we may have saved the world from a catastrophic climate change.

 

I don't disagree, but the economic impact is something you are grossly underestimating.  We're already seeing schemes to limit the power and influence of entire nations, redistribute wealth through carbon tax schemes, etc.  The hard left uses this issue to try and accomplish a transfer of wealth from richer Western nations to poorer ones.  And so far, our "solutions" are nothing of the kind.  I'm all for limiting pollution and protecting the environment, but not at the expense of human lives.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #229 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

It did read like that - you said that it was not happening. I absolutely agree that it is unproven, but given the extreme difficulty of proving it due to the system complexity and timescales involved, and the unfortunate possibility that by the time it is proven it may be too late to fix the problem, it is not unreasonable to consider what we might do to mitigate its effects in case it turns out to be correct. If it is incorrect there will end up having been some unnecessary economic impact, but no other harm done. If it is correct then we may have saved the world from a catastrophic climate change.

 

I don't disagree, but the economic impact is something you are grossly underestimating.  We're already seeing schemes to limit the power and influence of entire nations, redistribute wealth through carbon tax schemes, etc.  The hard left uses this issue to try and accomplish a transfer of wealth from richer Western nations to poorer ones.  And so far, our "solutions" are nothing of the kind.  I'm all for limiting pollution and protecting the environment, but not at the expense of human lives.  

 

I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm underestimating it, since I gave no estimate. But there is the tough decision - what level of economic impact are we willing to accept to hedge against the possibility of a far worse outcome?

post #230 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm underestimating it, since I gave no estimate. But there is the tough decision - what level of economic impact are we willing to accept to hedge against the possibility of a far worse outcome?

 

Well, that was the impression I got given the way you phrased it.  You said "some unnecessary economic impact."  That didn't exactly sound like you were communicating it was significant.  The fact is we're already seeing significant economic damage from policies pushed by the environmental movement.  We're seeing it in coal production, oil production, costs imposed on businesses that produce goods, fuel, etc.  And if the tax and regulation schemes the Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™ wants are put into place, things will be vastly more severe.   I therefore cannot support "solutions" that 1) are not solving anything, 2) cause economic damage to the U.S. and other nations and 3) are designed to fix a problem that is far from proven from even existing.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #231 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm underestimating it, since I gave no estimate. But there is the tough decision - what level of economic impact are we willing to accept to hedge against the possibility of a far worse outcome?

 

Well, that was the impression I got given the way you phrased it.  You said "some unnecessary economic impact."  That didn't exactly sound like you were communicating it was significant.  The fact is we're already seeing significant economic damage from policies pushed by the environmental movement.  We're seeing it in coal production, oil production, costs imposed on businesses that produce goods, fuel, etc.  And if the tax and regulation schemes the Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™ wants are put into place, things will be vastly more severe.   I therefore cannot support "solutions" that 1) are not solving anything, 2) cause economic damage to the U.S. and other nations and 3) are designed to fix a problem that is far from proven from even existing.  

 

I understand the reluctance to commit extensive resources to a problem that may or may not exist, but the question stands as to how much we are willing to invest as insurance against the possibility that it does. By the way, I don't think snide references to a "Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™", whatever that is supposed to mean, helps portray you as having an objective approach to this issue.

post #232 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I understand the reluctance to commit extensive resources to a problem that may or may not exist, but the question stands as to how much we are willing to invest as insurance against the possibility that it does. By the way, I don't think snide references to a "Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™", whatever that is supposed to mean, helps portray you as having an objective approach to this issue.

 

I think part of the argument is that there are numerous "potential" threats that we "could" protect against.  How do we decide which of these is something worth protecting against, and as you pointed out just how much are we willing to invest for that protection?  For instance, should we spend hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in an attempt to protect ourselves against the cosmic shooting gallery thru which we travel (aka asteroids)?  Let's face it, there is far more evidence to support extinction level events from space than there are for man-made global warming.  This is the most obvious one that I could come up with off the top of my head, and I would say is much less intrusive to the general populace.  Beyond that, this one would have dramatic fringe benefits in terms of jobs and technology.  Finally, this is one that a small, dedicated group of nations could undertake on their own without commitment for the rest of the planet as opposed to regulating carbon emissions worldwide.

post #233 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I understand the reluctance to commit extensive resources to a problem that may or may not exist, but the question stands as to how much we are willing to invest as insurance against the possibility that it does. By the way, I don't think snide references to a "Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™", whatever that is supposed to mean, helps portray you as having an objective approach to this issue.

 

I think part of the argument is that there are numerous "potential" threats that we "could" protect against.  How do we decide which of these is something worth protecting against, and as you pointed out just how much are we willing to invest for that protection?  For instance, should we spend hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in an attempt to protect ourselves against the cosmic shooting gallery thru which we travel (aka asteroids)?  Let's face it, there is far more evidence to support extinction level events from space than there are for man-made global warming.  This is the most obvious one that I could come up with off the top of my head, and I would say is much less intrusive to the general populace.  Beyond that, this one would have dramatic fringe benefits in terms of jobs and technology.  Finally, this is one that a small, dedicated group of nations could undertake on their own without commitment for the rest of the planet as opposed to regulating carbon emissions worldwide.

 

Good points, and I do not know the answer. In terms of the global warming question, I would say that research resources definitely should be devoted to the problem. Looking further ahead, there appears to be some synergy with other issues, such as the long term depletion of natural hydrocarbon resources, that would indicate that money spent on alternative energy sources would not be wasted. Personally I think that that problem has an obvious solution that is both a cheap energy source and carbon neutral - nuclear power. Unfortunately the political issues and public ignorance factors cannot be ignored.

 

As for significant earth impact events, I'm afraid that we are a long way from being able to mitigate those.

post #234 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I understand the reluctance to commit extensive resources to a problem that may or may not exist, but the question stands as to how much we are willing to invest as insurance against the possibility that it does. By the way, I don't think snide references to a "Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™", whatever that is supposed to mean, helps portray you as having an objective approach to this issue.

 

I heard the sun might explode in 100 years, too.  Shouldn't we commit resources to stopping that?   By the way, the "club" remark was simply to illustrate that there is a vocal group that is committed to believing and acting on "global warming" no matter what the facts.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Good points, and I do not know the answer. In terms of the global warming question, I would say that research resources definitely should be devoted to the problem. Looking further ahead, there appears to be some synergy with other issues, such as the long term depletion of natural hydrocarbon resources, that would indicate that money spent on alternative energy sources would not be wasted. Personally I think that that problem has an obvious solution that is both a cheap energy source and carbon neutral - nuclear power. Unfortunately the political issues and public ignorance factors cannot be ignored.

 

As for significant earth impact events, I'm afraid that we are a long way from being able to mitigate those.

 

 

Research is fine, but I think you know the proposed "solutions" are far beyond that.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #235 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I understand the reluctance to commit extensive resources to a problem that may or may not exist, but the question stands as to how much we are willing to invest as insurance against the possibility that it does. By the way, I don't think snide references to a "Global Warming Enthusiasm Club™", whatever that is supposed to mean, helps portray you as having an objective approach to this issue.

 

I heard the sun might explode in 100 years, too.  Shouldn't we commit resources to stopping that?   By the way, the "club" remark was simply to illustrate that there is a vocal group that is committed to believing and acting on "global warming" no matter what the facts.  

 

Are you saying that you think the probability that we may be causing problematic global warming is similar to that of the sun exploding in 100 years?

 

As for the "club", I'm fairly sure that we are all aware that there is a range of views on this subject. The "facts" are currently ambiguous in that they admit both explanations, and while there are certainly vested interests on both sides of the argument, you would do well not to dismiss so glibly a significant segment of expert opinion.

post #236 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Good points, and I do not know the answer. In terms of the global warming question, I would say that research resources definitely should be devoted to the problem. Looking further ahead, there appears to be some synergy with other issues, such as the long term depletion of natural hydrocarbon resources, that would indicate that money spent on alternative energy sources would not be wasted. Personally I think that that problem has an obvious solution that is both a cheap energy source and carbon neutral - nuclear power. Unfortunately the political issues and public ignorance factors cannot be ignored.

 

As for significant earth impact events, I'm afraid that we are a long way from being able to mitigate those.

 

I completely agree with both the pros and cons surrounding nuclear power.  Both in terms of benefits to the environment and also a short term economic boost, which we could sorely use right now.  The construction industry could certainly use any boost it can get these days and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity certainly couldn't hurt the economy at large.  Obviously that would be the result of dozens of new nuclear power plants.

 

I don't disagree on the fact that we are a ways off from being able to address a significant Earth impact event.  I would however argue that given the enormous social complexities involved in addressing climate change, if it is indeed real (only healthy skepticism here), it is a more reachable goal to possibly divert or destroy an inbound asteroid.

post #237 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Are you saying that you think the probability that we may be causing problematic global warming is similar to that of the sun exploding in 100 years?

 

As for the "club", I'm fairly sure that we are all aware that there is a range of views on this subject. The "facts" are currently ambiguous in that they admit both explanations, and while there are certainly vested interests on both sides of the argument, you would do well not to dismiss so glibly a significant segment of expert opinion.

 

1.  Honestly, yes.  OK, that's overstated...clearly the former is more likely.  But I'm not sure how much more likely it is.  

 

2.  A "range of views?"  The point is that skeptics are immediately indicted as being corrupted by Big Oil interests, stupid, or worse.  This, despite very little evidence that the Earth is actually warming significantly at all...or abnormally.  And no, I'm not just talking about "expert opinion."  I'm talking about everyone from politicians to radical environmentalists to the mainstream leftist movement which gobbles up the AGW theory and uses it to support their political goals.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #238 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Are you saying that you think the probability that we may be causing problematic global warming is similar to that of the sun exploding in 100 years?

 

As for the "club", I'm fairly sure that we are all aware that there is a range of views on this subject. The "facts" are currently ambiguous in that they admit both explanations, and while there are certainly vested interests on both sides of the argument, you would do well not to dismiss so glibly a significant segment of expert opinion.

 

1.  Honestly, yes.  OK, that's overstated...clearly the former is more likely.  But I'm not sure how much more likely it is.  

 

2.  A "range of views?"  The point is that skeptics are immediately indicted as being corrupted by Big Oil interests, stupid, or worse.  This, despite very little evidence that the Earth is actually warming significantly at all...or abnormally.  And no, I'm not just talking about "expert opinion."  I'm talking about everyone from politicians to radical environmentalists to the mainstream leftist movement which gobbles up the AGW theory and uses it to support their political goals.  

 

Best not to pay too much attention to the hard core environmentalists or to those who claim definitively that it is not happening. I disagree that skeptics are labelled in that way. I definitely count myself as a skeptic in the sense that it does not appear to me that the case has been proven, but given the potential consequences I think that it is wise to fund further research, explore alternative energy sources, and at least consider the cost/benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

post #239 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Best not to pay too much attention to the hard core environmentalists or to those who claim definitively that it is not happening. I disagree that skeptics are labelled in that way. I definitely count myself as a skeptic in the sense that it does not appear to me that the case has been proven, but given the potential consequences I think that it is wise to fund further research, explore alternative energy sources, and at least consider the cost/benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

 

We won't disagree there.  As I've stated before, the specific "solutions" and "research" I've seen are what tend to concern me, as does the fact that many "solutions" create new environmental (and other) problems in many cases.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #240 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I heard the sun might explode in 100 years, too.  Shouldn't we commit resources to stopping that?

This is why you and half the members of the House Science Committee shouldn't be taken seriously with regard to any important science issues.  This is quite possibly the dumbest comparison I have heard on this issue.  If these elected representatives and their similarly ignorant constituents want a seat at the adult table, they need to start demonstrating they actually care to learn about the science about which they wish to discuss--and not from sources like godmadebananastofitperfectlyinahumanhand.com or globalclimatechangeisahoaxbecausecoalisprofitable.com.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin