Global Warming

[obsidianavenger]

It's so sad that that kind of anti-science sentiment exists in America, and yeah, I don't think it's possible to change their minds. We're both Ph.D. students though, so I'm hoping he'll be a little more receptive to science than your average Ken Ham. The extreme irony of course being that his research is on hydrogen storage and probably funded by bailout money to save the planet.

This is probably where "our side" fails the most in dealing with the liars, frauds, and nuts. We assume that making the scientific argument is good enough, and the way to answer false claims is to present the truth and let it do the work for us. That's just not enough, because we're getting our asses handed to us by emotional arguments that aren't fact-based and are often immune to fact-based refutation.

so the means justifies the ends as long as you're sure enough of yourself? sounds like something bush would say >.<

thats my issue with your other post too. simply saying they are all nutjobs has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. even if your conclusion is correct the way you get there is not and the argument fails. if you *honestly* think that the science of it is completely beyond you then why have an opinion on it at all?

you say that you don't understand the science enough to make an argument based on it, and yet you are so sure that you are right that you are willing to use unsavory means to "win". this scares me a little.

 

[TheAnMish]

Side note: One can be extremely informed of most things within a field, but if you are not informed within a certain subject, then you can't be expected to make an educated statement about it.

I for one, don't know a thing about global warming, other than the fact that people say it's happening. I support the idea of going green, mainly because I don't think it can hurt. But I don't 'know' anything about it, and so.. I sometimes end up saying things about it that are rash, stupid, or at best, uneducated. I try not to, but it doesn't always help.

I find it difficult to find a 'reliable' source, when it comes to global warming, especially because I was stupid enough to listen to Al Gore for a few hours of my life, and what he's saying pretty much translates as bullshit to me.
But in the end - I don't know.


Btw, if anyone can point me to a good (and somewhat simplified) line of vids on youtube about it, I'd be thankful, 'cause I really want to know a bit more about it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

so the means justifies the ends as long as you're sure enough of yourself? sounds like something bush would say >.<

thats my issue with your other post too. simply saying they are all nutjobs has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. even if your conclusion is correct the way you get there is not and the argument fails. if you *honestly* think that the science of it is completely beyond you then why have an opinion on it at all?

you say that you don't understand the science enough to make an argument based on it, and yet you are so sure that you are right that you are willing to use unsavory means to "win". this scares me a little.

You're intentionally twisting what I'm saying to make it mean something other than what I intend. What is your purpose here, if you will not engage honestly with what I've posted? Or do you need me to explain these concepts much more simply, so that you can understand them better?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Side note: One can be extremely informed of most things within a field, but if you are not informed within a certain subject, then you can't be expected to make an educated statement about it.

I for one, don't know a thing about global warming, other than the fact that people say it's happening. I support the idea of going green, mainly because I don't think it can hurt. But I don't 'know' anything about it, and so.. I sometimes end up saying things about it that are rash, stupid, or at best, uneducated. I try not to, but it doesn't always help.

I find it difficult to find a 'reliable' source, when it comes to global warming, especially because I was stupid enough to listen to Al Gore for a few hours of my life, and what he's saying pretty much translates as bullshit to me.
But in the end - I don't know.


Btw, if anyone can point me to a good (and somewhat simplified) line of vids on youtube about it, I'd be thankful, 'cause I really want to know a bit more about it.

Thanks for providing an example of what I was talking about earlier.

You admit that you don't know much, but you feel like Al Gore is full of shit, and I think it is safe to say that your dislike for him colors your view of the issue? Wouldn't it be helpful if you knew who to trust as an expert on the subject, since there's no way you can completely educate yourself on the subject? Obviously, you trust the people here enough to ask for suggestions as to what videos to watch.

I'd ask you this question: what do you think is more likely, that climate science is an airtight worldwide anti-capitalist conspiracy that has been falsifying data consistently for decades in order to get research money and keep their relatively low-paying jobs? Or that the polluting industries and politicians, who have millions, billions, and maybe even trillions of dollars at stake over the long term, are resisting accepting climate change for the sake of those mountains of cash and continued political power? As Batman might ask: "Who benefits?"

 

[Giliell]

Btw, if anyone can point me to a good (and somewhat simplified) line of vids on youtube about it, I'd be thankful, 'cause I really want to know a bit more about it.

Potholer 54 has a good series on the issue, also exploring the scientific concerns and scepticism

 

[TheAnMish]

Thanks for providing an example of what I was talking about earlier.

You admit that you don't know much, but you feel like Al Gore is full of shit, and I think it is safe to say that your dislike for him colors your view of the issue? Wouldn't it be helpful if you knew who to trust as an expert on the subject, since there's no way you can completely educate yourself on the subject? Obviously, you trust the people here enough to ask for suggestions as to what videos to watch.

I'd ask you this question: what do you think is more likely, that climate science is an airtight worldwide anti-capitalist conspiracy that has been falsifying data consistently for decades in order to get research money and keep their relatively low-paying jobs? Or that the polluting industries and politicians, who have millions, billions, and maybe even trillions of dollars at stake over the long term, are resisting accepting climate change for the sake of those mountains of cash and continued political power? As Batman might ask: "Who benefits?"

I would say that it's most likely that ones lying, are the politicians.

The reason I think Al Gore is full of bs, is this: When watching his "an inconvenient truth" film, I find it odd that there is not on any graph, the name of an institute or scientist, to display where this information is from. If there was, I would find it more believable. My "dislike" of him doesn't color my view of the subject, just of him. So anything he says in the future, I'll be more sceptical about.

Yes, I'd love to know who to trust, but I simply don't know enough, to know where to look. So all the info I get, is through the media, and I never trust the media, because it's either privately funded, or government funded. Both are biased.

The reason I trust the people on this forum enough to ask, is that my perception of you (so far), is that you're more interested in actual knowledge, than being right.

Did I cover everything?
(Also, I apologize if I can't spell. Please correct me, as I'm really striving to perfect my english.)

 

[Squawk]

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo

Seconded on potholer, he gives a nice introduction, to this and many other topics. It's not what you might expect mind, its not an introduction in the usual sense.

 

[obsidianavenger]

so the means justifies the ends as long as you're sure enough of yourself? sounds like something bush would say >.<

thats my issue with your other post too. simply saying they are all nutjobs has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. even if your conclusion is correct the way you get there is not and the argument fails. if you *honestly* think that the science of it is completely beyond you then why have an opinion on it at all?

you say that you don't understand the science enough to make an argument based on it, and yet you are so sure that you are right that you are willing to use unsavory means to "win". this scares me a little.

You're intentionally twisting what I'm saying to make it mean something other than what I intend. What is your purpose here, if you will not engage honestly with what I've posted? Or do you need me to explain these concepts much more simply, so that you can understand them better?

i am not intentionally twisting what you say, i am taking your statements to their logical conclusion.

it bothers me that you would accuse me of malicious intent or stupidity, but not answer the questions i have posed to you. what could you possibly mean other than "we should adopt the rhetorical techniques of those who make bad but convincing arguments" and "we are not qualified to make a scientific argument about global warming" ? you said those things, not me...

Side note: One can be extremely informed of most things within a field, but if you are not informed within a certain subject, then you can't be expected to make an educated statement about it.

[/quote]

true. but the fact that it is hard to educate yourself on a given subject doesn't absolve you from your responsibility to educate yourself on it if you insist on having an opinion about it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

i am not intentionally twisting what you say, i am taking your statements to their logical conclusion.

it bothers me that you would accuse me of malicious intent or stupidity, but not answer the questions i have posed to you. what could you possibly mean other than "we should adopt the rhetorical techniques of those who make bad but convincing arguments" and "we are not qualified to make a scientific argument about global warming" ? you said those things, not me...

So, since you're "malicious or stupid"(your words, not mine), I'll feel free to ignore you and your ignorant comments from here on out. Cheers!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I would say that it's most likely that ones lying, are the politicians.

The reason I think Al Gore is full of bs, is this: When watching his "an inconvenient truth" film, I find it odd that there is not on any graph, the name of an institute or scientist, to display where this information is from. If there was, I would find it more believable. My "dislike" of him doesn't color my view of the subject, just of him. So anything he says in the future, I'll be more sceptical about.

Yes, I'd love to know who to trust, but I simply don't know enough, to know where to look. So all the info I get, is through the media, and I never trust the media, because it's either privately funded, or government funded. Both are biased.

The reason I trust the people on this forum enough to ask, is that my perception of you (so far), is that you're more interested in actual knowledge, than being right.

Did I cover everything?
(Also, I apologize if I can't spell. Please correct me, as I'm really striving to perfect my english.)

I didn't notice anything fucked up enough about your spelling to comment...

See, that's the whole point I was getting at earlier. We can't know everything, so on some level we have to pick experts to trust on some issues. Every time you go to a mechanic or a doctor, you're making a judgment on that person because you can't be an expert on everything. So at some point we have to make judgments that are based on things other than scientific facts, because we're not able to become expert enough to judge.

I know enough about science to trust what comes out of the scientific consensus, not because it is incapable of being wrong, or because I believe that scientists have saint-like ethics and magical knowledge. I trust science because I know that the process is self-correcting, and that the experts have the very best chance of being right. And, they have access to the absolute best information possible.

Really, if you're going to trust someone, should it be the very best experts or people who aren't much more capable of evaluating the evidence than we are? I know I'm not a climate scientist, and neither is Sarah Palin, so why should anyone listen to us?

 

[TheAnMish]

I know I'm not a climate scientist, and neither is Sarah Palin, so why should anyone listen to us?

Hehe, I agree. I'm not a climate scientist either..
I do find it hard though, to find any paper or tv channel that reports the scientific consensus in an unbiased way. So where do we find it?
I know that in Denmark, it's been very back and forth. "We're all gonna die because of global warming" -> "Global warming doesn't exist" -> "We need to act now but we don't know what we need to do, really." -> "Nothing's happening, it's completely blown out of proportion" -> Climate meeting in cph (which btw, is messing up traffic in a major way).

You get the point, I'm sure...

 

[Aught3]

For experts on global warming the IPCC would be a good place to start. The group is composed of scientists, other experts, and government representatives and they all contribute to the reports that the IPCC issues. For example, their third assessment report was released in 2001 and is the work of 426 experts who were twice referred by 440 reviewers and the final report was subject to approval by delegates from 100 countries. The IPCC reports don't represent good, mainstream science, what they represent is the lowest common denominator science. Everyone, even sceptics (proper scientific sceptics), have agreed to the contents of these reports. If the IPCC says something you should believe it and then allow for the likelihood that things are far worse than they say.

 

[Niocan]

The entire thing is a lot easier to understand then what people make it out to be:
The earth has natural cycles of it's climate, of which is largely powered by the Sun (One of two sources of radiant energy for earth, the other being the heat from radioactively driven magma in the crust). These cycles have stabilized over the earths ~4.6 billion year lifespan. We as humans have done terrible things to the planet, but to think we can upset this 4.6 billion year old engine more then the Sun/Magma can is just flat out ignorance and egotism.

We must also accept, that we know very little about this engine in question because of how little we understand all the variables. It's extremely funny to know, that the clouds and the sun aren't taken into correct consideration in the climate models they have because the science behind this field (Astroclimatology) is young. None of the current models do their job of modeling the earth correctly, so they can only project the outcomes in which they're programmed to; Garbage in, garbage out (To anyone with programming skills).

Anyone supporting any claim that we properly project the climates conditions is lying through their ignorant teeth; It's an extremely dynamic system and the worries about CO2 doing anything but making plants grow far faster and decreasing the water they need to live is a *lie*.

They're hijacking a natural cycle under the guise of humanitarian needs of protecting the greater good; It's a social conditioning program.

Other then an appeal to authority ("The IPCC told me so") and appeal to ignorance ("We need to save the earth") people who support AGW have nothing else to show to support the notion that we've effected the entire earths ecosystem enough to overpower the natural balances in the system. (Plant life is one massive balancing force in the system, but *incoming sarcasm* clearly we've put out sooooo much CO2 the plants can't keep up! :facepalm: )

 

[IrBubble]

Seriously Niocan? You're making the argument that because we don't have perfect knowlage we should never speak on any topic?

but to think we can upset this 4.6 billion year old engine more then the Sun/Magma can is just flat out ignorance and egotism.

Do you have anything to support this claim?

None of the current models do their job of modeling the earth correctly, so they can only project the outcomes in which they're programmed to; Garbage in, garbage out (To anyone with programming skills).

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you increase how much greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere you will increase the temperature. This might be bad for our species. You don't need to have a too accurate models to realize that the more kinetic energy our ball has the warmer it will be.

It's an extremely dynamic system and the worries about CO2 doing anything but making plants grow far faster and decreasing the water they need to live is a *lie*.

That is just stupid. Even if global warming from CO2 isn't dangerous it's still a FACT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it increases the temperature of our ball. Also, it's ironic that you first say that it's a compex system and then draw conclusions, even though you're not even slightly qualified in the subject.

 

[Niocan]

You're right IrBubblem but do you know how much of a factor CO2 is? Do you have a perfect understanding of all the other variables as to say with certain that our addition of CO2 is a threat or not?

Seriously Niocan? You're making the argument that because we don't have perfect knowlage we should never speak on any topic?

It's not that we shouldn't speak about it, but to be obsessive enough to single out this one factor and to say there's any consensus is an egotistical lie.

Also, it's ironic that you first say that it's a compex system and then draw conclusions, even though you're not even slightly qualified in the subject.

The conclusions I draw are as follows:
The system is dynamic enough to maintain itself, and without perfect knowledge about it we shouldn't base absurd ideas off of one variable without proper thought of the balancing forces within this system.

It isn't ironic at all, these are just the facts.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Hmmmm... sort of on topic here....

Some of the denier idiots claim that humans can't significantly affect the climate because our contribution of greenhouse gas is minimal compared to other factors. I can answer that two ways:

1) How much poison gas does it take to kill a 200 pound human being? How much poison is in the stinger of a bee, that it can kill someone who is allergic? The amount of something introduced into a system is not an accurate way of determining its effects on that system.

2) Why is it that the fastest person in the world can't just go out and break their own world record by a couple of percent every time they go out? It is only a little bit faster... wo why can't they do it? Why can't the fastest car in the world go just a little bit faster? Systems have limits, and attempting to exceed those limits by even a little bit can cause disastrous consequences.

 

[Niocan]

Hmmmm... sort of on topic here....

Some of the denier idiots claim that humans can't significantly affect the climate because our contribution of greenhouse gas is minimal compared to other factors.

Stop hiding and face me eye to eye, and I'm saying that our contribution to CO2 doesn't exceed the implications of other factors you've yet to face and implement.

I can answer that two ways:

1) How much poison gas does it take to kill a 200 pound human being? How much poison is in the stinger of a bee, that it can kill someone who is allergic? The amount of something introduced into a system is not an accurate way of determining its effects on that system.

This is an argument about the energy in the system, and the systems inability to cope with it. CO2 isn't a poison of any kind, in fact in this analogy it's the life energy of every system in question. Perhaps there's a better way to explain your failed point?

2) Why is it that the fastest person in the world can't just go out and break their own world record by a couple of percent every time they go out? It is only a little bit faster... wo why can't they do it? Why can't the fastest car in the world go just a little bit faster? Systems have limits, and attempting to exceed those limits by even a little bit can cause disastrous consequences.

The person can, though is reliant on personal evolution; The car cannot, because it wasn't built to evolve. What does that tell you?

 

[Aught3]

Some of the denier idiots claim that humans can't significantly affect the climate because our contribution of greenhouse gas is minimal compared to other factors. I can answer that two ways:

There is also the related claim that because CO2 only makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere it can't really have that much impact on our global conditions. I like to point out that ozone makes up only 0.00006% of our atmosphere yet without its presence almost all life on earth would die off.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The entire thing is a lot easier to understand then what people make it out to be:
The earth has natural cycles of it's climate, of which is largely powered by the Sun (One of two sources of radiant energy for earth, the other being the heat from radioactively driven magma in the crust). These cycles have stabilized over the earths ~4.6 billion year lifespan. We as humans have done terrible things to the planet, but to think we can upset this 4.6 billion year old engine more then the Sun/Magma can is just flat out ignorance and egotism.

We must also accept, that we know very little about this engine in question because of how little we understand all the variables. It's extremely funny to know, that the clouds and the sun aren't taken into correct consideration in the climate models they have because the science behind this field (Astroclimatology) is young. None of the current models do their job of modeling the earth correctly, so they can only project the outcomes in which they're programmed to; Garbage in, garbage out (To anyone with programming skills).

Anyone supporting any claim that we properly project the climates conditions is lying through their ignorant teeth; It's an extremely dynamic system and the worries about CO2 doing anything but making plants grow far faster and decreasing the water they need to live is a *lie*.

They're hijacking a natural cycle under the guise of humanitarian needs of protecting the greater good; It's a social conditioning program.

Other then an appeal to authority ("The IPCC told me so") and appeal to ignorance ("We need to save the earth") people who support AGW have nothing else to show to support the notion that we've effected the entire earths ecosystem enough to overpower the natural balances in the system. (Plant life is one massive balancing force in the system, but *incoming sarcasm* clearly we've put out sooooo much CO2 the plants can't keep up! :facepalm: )

And thats why thousands upon thousands of man-hours go into post-graduate climate research. When you get a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics you can come back and try to explain why we can't understand the Earth's cycles and why thousands of people who've spend their entire lives studying this are completely wrong. Until then, people with the proper qualifications are actively engaged in doing so and the collected body of scientific literature is in overwhelming agreement that AGW is real.

A nice link from pharyngula: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And thats why thousands upon thousands of man-hours go into post-graduate climate research. When you get a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics you can come back and try to explain why we can't understand the Earth's cycles and why thousands of people who've spend their entire lives studying this are completely wrong. Until then, people with the proper qualifications are actively engaged in doing so and the collected body of scientific literature is in overwhelming agreement that AGW is real.

A nice link from pharyngula: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

The implication that the anti-science crowd is making is that somehow they can think of things that thousands of climate science experts, and all of their students, somehow missed out on noticing. They really think that climate scientists have never heard of climate cycles, or... THE SUN. :facepalm: