Another Nail in the AGW Coffin - Page 6

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.

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

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

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

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

Mission accomplished, BR. Mission accomplished.

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.

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.

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

 

Good luck with your mission, BR.

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

Anyway, back on topic:

 

Climate Was Warmer 1000 and 2000 Years Ago

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

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.

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"!

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

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.

 

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.

Some interesting assertions and misunderstandings cropping up in this discussion:

 

 

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. 

 

 

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.

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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'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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.