[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate.[/quote]
Be specific.
Do you believe CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere?
Do you believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Do you believe the average surface temperature of the planet is not a function of the constituency of the atmosphere? If no, then why do you single out CO2?
When you say CO2 doesn’t do anything, does this mean it has no effect, or that it has a very small effect?
[quote]Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate.
Be specific.
Do you believe CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere?
Do you believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Do you believe the average surface temperature of the planet is not a function of the constituency of the atmosphere? If no, then why do you single out CO2?
When you say CO2 doesn’t do anything, does this mean it has no effect, or that it has a very small effect?[/quote]
I think it’s at most negligible compared to other inputs beyond the control of humans.
I think that the Gore/Hansen version of global warming is laughable as well as the insistence that controlling CO2 through government will have any real effect on global temperatures.
How bout you? got any more specifics on your earlier post I asked for?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate.
Be specific.
Do you believe CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere?
Do you believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Do you believe the average surface temperature of the planet is not a function of the constituency of the atmosphere? If no, then why do you single out CO2?
When you say CO2 doesn’t do anything, does this mean it has no effect, or that it has a very small effect?
I think it’s at most negligible compared to other inputs beyond the control of humans. [/quote]
It’s good that you think, but just because you do, doesn’t make it the truth. As of today, there are more scientists who believe we are making affecting the climate with our lifestyles, than scientists who don’t.
But let’s look at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint: It’s either negligible or it’s not.
If it is and we decide to curb carbon emissions, then the most we could lose is driving up the price of a few commodities (which could be a blessing in that people will hopefully stop breeding like bunnies). At the end of the day, we end up with a cleaner air for all.
If it’s not, and we keep doing what we’re doing, life on Earth as we know it will be in jeopardy.
For any rational person, it’s a no-brainer.
[quote]lixy wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate.
Be specific.
Do you believe CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere?
Do you believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Do you believe the average surface temperature of the planet is not a function of the constituency of the atmosphere? If no, then why do you single out CO2?
When you say CO2 doesn’t do anything, does this mean it has no effect, or that it has a very small effect?
I think it’s at most negligible compared to other inputs beyond the control of humans.
It’s good that you think, but just because you do, doesn’t make it the truth. As of today, there are more scientists who believe we are making affecting the climate with our lifestyles, than scientists who don’t.
But let’s look at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint: It’s either negligible or it’s not.
If it is and we decide to curb carbon emissions, then the most we could lose is driving up the price of a few commodities (which could be a blessing in that people will hopefully stop breeding like bunnies). At the end of the day, we end up with a cleaner air for all.
If it’s not, and we keep doing what we’re doing, life on Earth as we know it will be in jeopardy.
For any rational person, it’s a no-brainer.[/quote]
A few commodities? You think making people poorer will stop them from having children? Please tell me how this works.
Please site your most scientists source.
Your argument to encourage a possible economically disastrous course of action is “doom and gloom”.
You sound like the Bible thumpers who say believe because if the Bible is wrong, no harm done, but if it’s right you burn in hell.
From a pragmatic standpoint temperatures peaked around 1995 and have been declining since 1998, so why don’t we keep doing what we have been the last 13 years?
Who is going to stop breeding like bunnies? Well, which populations are breeding like bunnies?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Those damn “sky is falling” folks in the Maldives “believe.” For some damn reason they think climate change is serious. What kooks! I wonder why the whole damn country has fallen for this “religion”?
WOW I’m convinced. Let’s take the world’s industrial economies back to the pre industrial levels of output to save the Maldives!
Realizing that the climate changes and measuring it is science. Believing human beings can change the climate is religion.
In 10 years you will fall for global cooling caused by man, count on it. The liberal mind always falls for the latest fads.
[/quote]
If there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that you’re incapable of being convinced. There’s plenty of information out there, you’re probably even intelligent enough to look it up for yourself. But you’ll never believe it, no matter how compelling the evidence. You’ll continue to shout “religion”, “myth” and “PC” because you’re an ideologue. Simple stuff really.
You don’t think that humans can influence climate, huh? I won’t try to convince you otherwise. I could show you pg 8 of this document
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
You might even read it, but you’ll never believe it. That, to you, isn’t science because the right-wingers you listen to say it’s not.
Don’t bother arguing the science behind things. Shout buzz words and spew right-wing talking points…it’ll make you feel better. Who’s following a “religion” again?
PS I like the talking point about taking economies back to pre-idustrial blah blah. Beautiful strawman.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate.
Be specific.
Do you believe CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere?
Do you believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Do you believe the average surface temperature of the planet is not a function of the constituency of the atmosphere? If no, then why do you single out CO2?
When you say CO2 doesn’t do anything, does this mean it has no effect, or that it has a very small effect?
I think it’s at most negligible compared to other inputs beyond the control of humans.[/quote]
First, RE: your earlier question, it’s not so much that the real skeptics have disappeared, it’s that it’s become fashionable for right wingers to fancy themselves scientists so that they can preach their anti global warming views as gospel.
Case in point with hedo, who has become an “expert” on the scientific method by reading Wikipedia articles without understanding them.
Now, concerning CO2. Is it your view that CO2 is negligible at present quantities, or that it would be negligible at any quantity?
If human CO2 contribution was cut to zero, how much warming will we have cut?
[quote]Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Gael wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I for one don’t believe CO2 does anything to the global climate.
Be specific.
Do you believe CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the atmosphere?
Do you believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Do you believe the average surface temperature of the planet is not a function of the constituency of the atmosphere? If no, then why do you single out CO2?
When you say CO2 doesn’t do anything, does this mean it has no effect, or that it has a very small effect?
I think it’s at most negligible compared to other inputs beyond the control of humans.
First, RE: your earlier question, it’s not so much that the real skeptics have disappeared, it’s that it’s become fashionable for right wingers to fancy themselves scientists so that they can preach their anti global warming views as gospel.
Case in point with hedo, who has become an “expert” on the scientific method by reading Wikipedia articles without understanding them.
Now, concerning CO2. Is it your view that CO2 is negligible at present quantities, or that it would be negligible at any quantity?[/quote]
What about Gore and his following? The whole issue is a political cluster.
I’m saying I think there are much more important factors and there are other credible theories to account for cycles in the climate.
EX:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
I think demonizing CO2 and legislating action is at least way premature as there can be disastrous effects to that kind of legislation.
I don’t know what specific response you are trying to rope me into so you can prove a specific point wrong.
I could also say that as a default I side against crazies like ted turner and all the other tree hugger celebs. =0)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A few commodities? You think making people poorer will stop them from having children? Please tell me how this works. [/quote]
Weren’t you paying attention. Prices go up, you don’t have as much spare cash → You don’t have as many children.
Or from another angle: Prices go up, you don’t have as much spare cash, you don’t send money to African villages → They stop having so many children.
My what now?
Not really. As of now, I didn’t make any argument. I merely attempted to show that playing it safe is the more reasonable approach.
If I had to build an argument, I would do so around air pollution, health of the fauna and flora, etc.
I didn’t say believe anything. Just stop being so categorical about what you disbelieve. The stakes are too high.
And yet, the ocean levels keep rising.
For the last time, I don’t know if it we can make a dent in this or not. But it shouldn’t exclude that we try. The opportunity/cost is a no-brainer here.
[quote]lixy wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A few commodities? You think making people poorer will stop them from having children? Please tell me how this works.
Weren’t you paying attention. Prices go up, you don’t have as much spare cash → You don’t have as many children.
Or from another angle: Prices go up, you don’t have as much spare cash, you don’t send money to African villages → They stop having so many children.
Please site your most scientists source.
My what now?
Your argument to encourage a possible economically disastrous course of action is “doom and gloom”.
Not really. As of now, I didn’t make any argument. I merely attempted to show that playing it safe is the more reasonable approach.
If I had to build an argument, I would do so around air pollution, health of the fauna and flora, etc.
You sound like the Bible thumpers who say believe because if the Bible is wrong, no harm done, but if it’s right you burn in hell.
I didn’t say believe anything. Just stop being so categorical about what you disbelieve. The stakes are too high.
From a pragmatic standpoint temperatures peaked around 1995 and have been declining since 1998, so why don’t we keep doing what we have been the last 13 years?
And yet, the ocean levels keep rising.
For the last time, I don’t know if it we can make a dent in this or not. But it shouldn’t exclude that we try. The opportunity/cost is a no-brainer here. [/quote]
Or they continue having babies that just starve to death, so I guess either way you are controlling population. Are you arguing that charitable donations to African do more harm than good?
Why don’t we just increase food taxes and solve a bunch of problems?
CO2 is not some man-made horrible radioactive compound. There are benefits to it, such as increased plant growth.
You said “more scientists” agree with man-made global warming than don’t, I was wondering were that stat came from.
Just how much CO2 are African villages contributing?
Global Warming, or “Anthropogenic Climate Change”, is not science.
The GW “science” has not and cannot perform Step #2, thus it is not science. (For comparison’s sake, Creationism cannot perform step #2 either, while evolutionists can, and thus should not be included in SCIENCE classes, IMO).
All the “science” that the GW crowd has is a truck load of relationships between different variables that may or may not mean that human action is changing the climate. It’s hardly the slam-dunk, carved in stone Gospel Truth that Al Gore would have you believe.
Computer models predicting climate are as worthless as computer models predicting the global economy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just how much CO2 are African villages contributing?[/quote]
well played.
[quote]Gael wrote:
hedo wrote:
Gael wrote:
hedo wrote:
Global Warming is a belief nothing more. Since it can’t be proven…
All scientific theory “can’t be proven.” You still don’t understand this?
It is anti-PC to disagree that it is happening.
A lie. The only people using the term “politically correct” are right wing cry babies who want to pretend their views are being censored.
Believing human beings can change the climate is religion.
Why? In your answer, don’t equivocate “can” with “do.”
If it’s based on a mathematic model it can be proven. Unless it can’t be, then it’s a belief…like global warming. Look up the scientific method on Wikpedia.
Oops, hedo. Science provides theories that are predictive and tentative. Evidence can support theories, but all theories remain provisional. “Proof” is a concept in axiomatic systems, but not science. Scientific theory can be falsified but never proven.
You would do well to stay away from Wikipedia and practice some real learning.
Are you interested in science or in regurgitating right wing talking points?
Anyone who believes that theories based on mathematics models can be proven is beyond ignorant.
Putting aside the rest of your post, you must understand this before any rational discussion can take place.
Oh, and for the record, here’s a quote from the wikipedia article you suggested:
[i]In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.
Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”[8])[/i]
Take it as free advice, hedo: if you’re going to tell someone to read something, make sure you have at least cursory knowledge of the subject at hand.
Otherwise, you’re a poser.
[/quote]
Funny shit. Bet you almost spit up your starbucks coffee with that one.
Curiosly you still haven’t made an argument to support global warming or why it’s claimed to be caused by man. Much like the meta analysis that your crowd seems to blindly follow.
A serious flaw in your argument and those of the fellow travellers.
Save your advice. I’ve somehow managed to avoid buying into the hysteria of global warming, cooling, population explosions and nuclear destruction for the past 20 years. Most people with a shred of common sense have to. I know this excludes you apparently but perhaps as you get older wisdom will be the end result.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The official position of the IPCC is that global warming (the increasing temperature on the surface of the globe) is “very likely” due to Man flunking all sorts of gases in the air. It’s not a belief system. It’s not even a certitude. Merely an educated shot at finding the cause of something that’ll inevitably doom millions of people. It’s quite astonishing that people who wouldn’t know science if it bit them in the ass challenge reports authored by some of the world’s most eminent scientists.
We might not know for sure, but probabilistically speaking, there are better chances of our current lifestyle screwing over the planet than not. Anyone challenging this must then explain why the principle of precaution shouldn’t apply to something that might be catastrophic. Does your right to overconsume and litter trump the right of others (including future generations) to live?
And the term PC is indubitably a buzzword of the right in the US, because of the term’s association with Maoism. It was a strawman back then, and it is still very much a strawman today. To suggest that it’s a “buzzword of the left” is beyond silly. It’s used almost exclusively by conservatives.[/quote]
Like the phrase religion of peace?
Your clueless. Restrictions on what can be said in taught are almost always proposed by the left wing.
Question. Now that oil has dropped below $40/bbl does that mean you will not post for two years since your original target was $80. Since you didn’t keep your word about posting here (no suprise) did you at least eat your shorts?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
hedo wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Those damn “sky is falling” folks in the Maldives “believe.” For some damn reason they think climate change is serious. What kooks! I wonder why the whole damn country has fallen for this “religion”?
WOW I’m convinced. Let’s take the world’s industrial economies back to the pre industrial levels of output to save the Maldives!
Realizing that the climate changes and measuring it is science. Believing human beings can change the climate is religion.
In 10 years you will fall for global cooling caused by man, count on it. The liberal mind always falls for the latest fads.
If there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that you’re incapable of being convinced. There’s plenty of information out there, you’re probably even intelligent enough to look it up for yourself. But you’ll never believe it, no matter how compelling the evidence. You’ll continue to shout “religion”, “myth” and “PC” because you’re an ideologue. Simple stuff really.
You don’t think that humans can influence climate, huh? I won’t try to convince you otherwise. I could show you pg 8 of this document
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
You might even read it, but you’ll never believe it. That, to you, isn’t science because the right-wingers you listen to say it’s not.
Don’t bother arguing the science behind things. Shout buzz words and spew right-wing talking points…it’ll make you feel better. Who’s following a “religion” again?
PS I like the talking point about taking economies back to pre-idustrial blah blah. Beautiful strawman.
[/quote]
Well you are certain about global warming too and that is a myth. I doubt your certainty is that reliable.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Just how much CO2 are African villages contributing?[/quote]
If that was directed at my post:
Are you suggesting that towns that don’t pollute will be unaffected by global climate change?
There is this huge deal about the icecaps melting but, how much do penguins and polar bears pollute?
[quote]Gael wrote:
Blame ethanol on the agricultural sector that lobbied hard for the subsidies. Ralph Nader called ethanol a “a multifaceted monstrosity radiating damage in all directions of the compass.”
You are trying to use ethanol to judge global warming and Al Gore to judge environmentalism. And then you call other people nitwits.
[/quote]
Here is one article that describes Obama’s love affair with ethanol:
Here is his energy program which is clearly influenced by his belief in global warming and also one where he would mandate that all new vehicles be flex fuel/ethanol vehicles:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
“Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles. Sustainably‐produced biofuels can create
jobs, protect the environment and help end oil addiction ? but only if Americans drive cars that
will take such fuels. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with Congress and auto companies to
ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability ? the capability by the end of his first term in
office.”
Al Gore on ethanol:
Vice President Al Gore maintains that ?it?s well known that I?ve always supported ethanol. I have a consistent record of shoring up the farm safety net.? Gore, who as vice president cast a tie-breaking vote in 1994 against a proposal Senator Bill Bradley sponsored to cut tax incentives for ethanol fuel, adds that ?I have not ducked when votes for … agricultural interests were on the floor.?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Jobs.htm
Here is a simple article that describes the typical environmentalist rational for using ethanol: