Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,256,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Is Global Warming a Hoax?

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 538
  1. #76
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,356
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'd like to see the data on that. As far as from what I've seen, the variation today is much less than from the medieval, roman, and minoan periods.


    https://xkcd.com/1732/
    Last edited by CoccoBill; 12-23-2016 at 02:53 AM.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,599
    Location
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It doesn't take a climate scientist to acknowledge that greenhouse gasses are emitted on the planet due to human activity.

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

    Note the non-0 values.

    Any questions?
    It would appear that is slightly/highly misleading as a link.Agriculture is down as 9% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US but I struggle to believe that that is a net figure after taking into consideration the co2 removed from the atmosphere by the crops photosynthesis removing CO2 from the atmosphere by converting co2 back to O2.

    On a world scale ,chopping down rainforest to create temporary grassland for beef production in brazil is extremely shortsighted by removing the co2 consumers (plants) to replace them with co2 generators ( animals) before the grasssland becomes semi desert due to lack of shade/soil fertility. WOrldwide developed countries should be paying the rainforest regions to retain them rather than chopping them down to exploit short term mineral/tree wealth and very short term animal production.
  3. #78
  4. #79
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    That's the best thing keith has ever said.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #80
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Professor Brian Cox - "Look at this graph"

    *whoops of applause*
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Professor Brian Cox - "Look at this graph"

    *whoops of applause*
    Should they applaud the 'scientists are just making it up' that the other guy said instead?

    Ya, I think that's what they told Fleming when he discovered penicillin - 'stop making shit up you phony'

    Also love how the denier guy tries to tell Cox how to do science.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-24-2016 at 09:45 AM.
  7. #82
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Should they applaud the 'scientists are just making it up' that the other guy said instead?

    Ya, I think that's what they told Fleming when he discovered penicillin - 'stop making shit up you phony'

    Also love how the denier guy tries to tell Cox how to do science.
    Nah the other guy is a moron, but that moment beautifully illustrates the global warming argument. Someone clever pointing to a graph, as though it's concrete proof. I get where wuf is coming from... science presents consensus like fact, which is not how science works, at least it wasn't last century.

    If they're going to put a climate change denier up against someone like Cox, they really should find an articulate one. I would like to know what Cox thinks about the role that clouds play in regulating global temperatures. I'd like to know if he thinks industry or deforestation is the bigger problem. I'd like to know if he thinks we should instead be more worried about volcanos and their climate effects than we should be about a gradual increase in average temperature.

    This guy is right about one thing... consensus isn't fact. Even universal consensus. Every sceientist in the world worth his salt will say humans are the most intelligent species on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, maybe these are and just can't manipulate like we can.

    Science can make assumptions based on probability, but it has to be honest about it and say it is not proven fact, that it can't stand the test of experiment because the experiment is ongoing. I think if climate change is really happening, the wake up call will be when Tuvalu gets claimed by the ocean. When that happens, the theory is making accurate predictions.

    Until then, people will continue to bicker about this because science continues to say this is fact without actual proof. Those of us who are naturally suspicious of the official narrative will tend to question what we're being told about climate. The proper tin hatters out there will make a fuss about it, and we'll have plebs like this guy they put against Cox struggling to articulate why the fuck he is doubtful.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If they're going to put a climate change denier up against someone like Cox, they really should find an articulate one.
    They should, but they're hard to find. Usually they just cherry pick elements of the story like guy in OP and say 'ha! if you just look at this and ignore/discount everything else, it's not convincing.'


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This guy is right about one thing... consensus isn't fact. Even universal consensus.
    Consensus at least is a sensible guide to what is going on, as compared to believing the opposite of whatever the consensus is.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Every sceientist in the world worth his salt will say humans are the most intelligent species on the planet. Elephants, dolphins, maybe these are and just can't manipulate like we can.
    Depends on how you define intelligence then. It takes a lot of brain power to control the 40 sets of muscles in your hands and wrists in a sophisticated way, which no other animal is able to do (notwithstanding differences in anatomy which disqualifies most animals from even trying).

    But ignoring that, there's no evidence other animals have language on any level similar to humans. Even if they try to train great apes, they learn words but not syntax.

    Ignoring language, a grown up chimp has the same cognitive skills as a six year old child.

    Ignoring that, brain to size ratio is way higher in humans than in any other animal, including elephants and whales.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Science can make assumptions based on probability, but it has to be honest about it and say it is not proven fact, that it can't stand the test of experiment because the experiment is ongoing. I think if climate change is really happening, the wake up call will be when Tuvalu gets claimed by the ocean. When that happens, the theory is making accurate predictions.
    The theory is already making accurate predictions about changes in sea level and extreme weather. If you wait until catastrophe happens before you accept the theory, then you've lost your chance. If science said an asteroid was going to hit the planet in five years and wipe out life, you wouldn't wait to see if it happened to confirm their theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Until then, people will continue to bicker about this because science continues to say this is fact without actual proof. Those of us who are naturally suspicious of the official narrative will tend to question what we're being told about climate. The proper tin hatters out there will make a fuss about it, and we'll have plebs like this guy they put against Cox struggling to articulate why the fuck he is doubtful.
    It's not a difficult proposition: either you trust science or you don't. That's why we have experts so we don't have to sift through all the evidence ourselves and draw conclusions. If an engineer says this bridge will hold 20t, I don't go 'wait this guy can't prove that, he's never tested it, so I'm going to drive my 25t truck over it cause he might be wrong.' I just take his word and act accordingly.

    The only reason there's any debate out AGW at all is because the naysayers have ties to economic interests in fossil fuel production imo. If it weren't for that, everyone would just go 'fuck yeah, let's deal with this shit'.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-24-2016 at 11:27 AM.
  9. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The only reason there's any debate out AGW at all is because the naysayers have ties to economic interests in fossil fuel production imo. If it weren't for that, everyone would just go 'fuck yeah, let's deal with this shit'.
    We could flip that around. Like this:

    The reason naysayers are galvanized is because of doomsayers who want everybody to live in huts because of an idea for which they have little evidence. Also it's a tool used by pro-authoritarian-government elites to get their way.
  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    We could flip that around. Like this:

    The reason naysayers are galvanized is because of doomsayers who want everybody to live in huts because of an idea for which they have little evidence. Also it's a tool used by pro-authoritarian-government elites to get their way.
    IOW, there's no plausible reason for scientists to collectively lie about this so they come up with nonsense ones, and hope that if they repeat them enough times people will start to believe it.

    So they come up with shit like the scientists are lying because they want to ruin the economy (why?) and it's the establishment that benefits from doing so (how?) and thus it's all a giant suspend-your-disbelief conspiracy-theory with no basis in reality.

    But I guess if you believe a pepperoni pizza is code for a blowjob from a minor then I guess it isn't much of a stretch to buy any of that.
  11. #86
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    ITT Keith shares his feelings:
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    It would appear that is slightly/highly misleading as a link.Agriculture is down as 9% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US but I struggle to believe that that is a net figure after taking into consideration the co2 removed from the atmosphere by the crops photosynthesis removing CO2 from the atmosphere by converting co2 back to O2.

    On a world scale ,chopping down rainforest to create temporary grassland for beef production in brazil is extremely shortsighted by removing the co2 consumers (plants) to replace them with co2 generators ( animals) before the grasssland becomes semi desert due to lack of shade/soil fertility. WOrldwide developed countries should be paying the rainforest regions to retain them rather than chopping them down to exploit short term mineral/tree wealth and very short term animal production.
    I embrace skepticism, but if you're not letting it lead you to new discoveries, then the sentiment this post is exactly the problem that scientists have to deal with.

    Scientist: Here's the data.
    Kieth: Yeah... but it feels wrong, so you're probably making it up.

    Also, rain forests are cool and all, but phytoplankton is the dominant Oxygen producer of planet Earth.
  12. #87
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's the best thing keith has ever said.
    The fact that this is the response to what Keith said is the mountain that scientists have to climb and why many scientists don't see the point in talking about their fields with laymen who don't have any true ambition to understand what the scientists have done or what the results mean.

    If you don't understand the data, that's one thing. If you assert that your lack of understanding means the conclusions are false, then that's a non-sequitur until you can demonstrate that the data is at fault, and not your understanding of the data.
  13. #88
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's not a difficult proposition: either you trust science or you don't.
    What? That's not what science is. It's not a thing you can trust or not. It's a process of Q&A supported by experimentation.
    Ultimately, everyone is a scientist if they harbor a curiosity, then they do something to elucidate the confusion.
    That's science.
    Curiosity -> experiment -> new understanding (sometimes often not about the original curiosity)

    Well...
    :/
    I guess you can distrust science, but if your distrust stems from personal experiences which have brought you observations, then you are using science to say why you distrust science, and that's crazy-talk.

    The only real argument for why someone would distrust science would have to be solely based on feelings and not evidence-based at all, because once you are using explanations based on evidence, you're doing science.
  14. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I genuinely appreciate that because it really does solve the problems being asked about & I feel like I posted it very early on.

    All that very reasonable arguments that get flagged up for global warming I wish people took the time to care about in relation to other things that should be questioned (imo) it's a shame it turns out that global warming is the one they take argument with. Not that I care for the alternative views with regards to global warming.
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    IOW, there's no plausible reason for scientists to collectively lie about this so they come up with nonsense ones, and hope that if they repeat them enough times people will start to believe it.

    So they come up with shit like the scientists are lying because they want to ruin the economy (why?) and it's the establishment that benefits from doing so (how?) and thus it's all a giant suspend-your-disbelief conspiracy-theory with no basis in reality.

    But I guess if you believe a pepperoni pizza is code for a blowjob from a minor then I guess it isn't much of a stretch to buy any of that.
    Let's blame the doomsayers. I used to be one.
  16. #91
    It's more than the doomsaying too.

    Here's a personal example: Washington State had a ballot initiative to add a carbon/gas tax. The initiative included a reduction in the rates of several other taxes, so as to get anti-tax people on board. I didn't vote for it in part because I know that the tax reductions are just temporary and that adding a carbon tax would just make the taxes in the state higher long term.

    It is in part because of this that I am more open to the idea that scientists are getting things wrong on AGW. A world in which we all believe AGW is an important issue we need to tackle is a world in which liberties will be markedly reduced. I, and many like me, do not want that kind of a world, so it opens us up to any possible counter to it.

    If, instead, the ballot initiative that would add a carbon tax did something like eliminate a different tax altogether, the issue might not be so big since it would signal that the path those who want to tackle AGW is taking does not involve marching more quickly towards totalitarianism.
  17. #92
    It would be so easy for me to get on board with the issue of tackling AGW if there was sense in the proposals. Externality is a serious issue and the case can credibly be made that only governments have the power to handle them. I can get on board with using government to do what it should do, and that includes managing externality. But nope, the movement is joined by the hip with the desire for government to do anything and everything. It galvanizes people like me to want to de-legitimize any part of the movement.
  18. #93
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It is in part because of this that I am more open to the idea that scientists are getting things wrong on AGW.
    This is good science. However, this is not your actual position (or I've misunderstood your position).

    You're not "open to the idea" that scientists are getting things wrong. You're openly asserting that scientists are getting things wrong.

    Which is also a great position to take if you can support it with data. You're not, though. You're looking at the scientists proposals as to how to respond to their data with disfavor, and using that disfavor to say the data must be bad. This does not follow. If you disagree with their responses to the data, then that's totally different than disagreeing with the data, and an altogether more productive discussion can take place if A) I am correct about it and B) you redirect your disfavor from the data to the responses to the data.

    The whole story is that whatever our responses to AGW are, they better be economically advantageous in the long term and not widespread economic disruptions in the short term. We need the confluence of climate scientists and economics to resolve this. Of course the scientists are not going to be as well-versed in the economic ramifications of their proposals as an economist. Of course, they're going to make bone-headed suggestions as to how to respond to their data. This is exactly why we need you (wuf) to avoid calling their data into question when it's really their bad economic advice that is your gripe.

    (Do still call question to the data, just try to accept that you're probably under-informed about their work, just as they are under-informed about your work.)

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    A world in which we all believe AGW is an important issue we need to tackle is a world in which liberties will be markedly reduced. I, and many like me, do not want that kind of a world, so it opens us up to any possible counter to it.
    A world in which we believe things which are poor descriptions of reality is a problem. If AGW is an accurate description of reality, then ignoring that because you have certain feelings is folly.

    If you choose to live in a world where AGW exists and goes unchecked, that's a totally different stance than denying AGW.

    If AGW is accurate, then doing nothing about it will also lead to a world with markedly reduced liberties. It's just that in this case, the liberties are reduced by the cost of "business as usual" in a less hospitable world.

    The notion that it opens you up to "any possible counter" is plain hypocrisy. You say that the scientists are taking the approach of saying whatever to convince you to believe them, and your response is to say anything to argue with them. If what you crave is an accurate description, then you're really screwing up by blindly countering their assertions without doing your own fact-checking first.
  19. #94
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It galvanizes people like me to want to de-legitimize any part of the movement.
    Again, this seems like hypocrisy to me.

    If you're saying that they will go to any lengths to convince you, and your beef is that you don't like having someone sling BS at you as though it's on the same footing as their research, then bravo.

    If your response to that is to do the same, then WTF??
  20. #95
    I agree. For some, it becomes about opposing it at all costs. For me it becomes questioning it at every corner.
  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    This is good science. However, this is not your actual position (or I've misunderstood your position).

    You're not "open to the idea" that scientists are getting things wrong. You're openly asserting that scientists are getting things wrong.

    Which is also a great position to take if you can support it with data. You're not, though. You're looking at the scientists proposals as to how to respond to their data with disfavor, and using that disfavor to say the data must be bad. This does not follow. If you disagree with their responses to the data, then that's totally different than disagreeing with the data, and an altogether more productive discussion can take place if A) I am correct about it and B) you redirect your disfavor from the data to the responses to the data.

    The whole story is that whatever our responses to AGW are, they better be economically advantageous in the long term and not widespread economic disruptions in the short term. We need the confluence of climate scientists and economics to resolve this. Of course the scientists are not going to be as well-versed in the economic ramifications of their proposals as an economist. Of course, they're going to make bone-headed suggestions as to how to respond to their data. This is exactly why we need you (wuf) to avoid calling their data into question when it's really their bad economic advice that is your gripe.

    (Do still call question to the data, just try to accept that you're probably under-informed about their work, just as they are under-informed about your work.)


    A world in which we believe things which are poor descriptions of reality is a problem. If AGW is an accurate description of reality, then ignoring that because you have certain feelings is folly.

    If you choose to live in a world where AGW exists and goes unchecked, that's a totally different stance than denying AGW.

    If AGW is accurate, then doing nothing about it will also lead to a world with markedly reduced liberties. It's just that in this case, the liberties are reduced by the cost of "business as usual" in a less hospitable world.

    The notion that it opens you up to "any possible counter" is plain hypocrisy. You say that the scientists are taking the approach of saying whatever to convince you to believe them, and your response is to say anything to argue with them. If what you crave is an accurate description, then you're really screwing up by blindly countering their assertions without doing your own fact-checking first.
    My perception has been that there is a lower standard of rigor in climate science. AGW has not been demonstrated, yet a near total majority of climate scientists who make statements on the subject do so as if it has. I think AGW is real and I understand why climate scientists would think it's real, but that's different than their scientific opinion. My argument is that if global warming was not such a hot political topic, they would have a much more robust opinion, which would be along the lines of "AGW could be real but we need more research". Instead what we get is "98% of climate scientists think AGW is real." This is political talk, not science talk.
  22. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,599
    Location
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The fact that this is the response to what Keith said is the mountain that scientists have to climb and why many scientists don't see the point in talking about their fields with laymen who don't have any true ambition to understand what the scientists have done or what the results mean.

    If you don't understand the data, that's one thing. If you assert that your lack of understanding means the conclusions are false, then that's a non-sequitur until you can demonstrate that the data is at fault, and not your understanding of the data.
    with an B.Sc (Hons) in Agricultural science ,I would think that I am not the layman that you seem to think i am with regards CO2 production by agriculture. Hence the fact that i picked on that part of the figures because its part that i can make informed comment on.

    You may find this link interesting http://www.rdmag.com/article/2016/11...e-growth-rates and demonstrates the well known fact that increased co2 increases plant growth rate until other nutrients become the limiting factor that is widely used in greenhouses where local environmental co2 levels can be increased cheaply without losing the co2 to the wider atmosphere.

    edit: shit , just told Ong how to make his weed production more efficient.
    Last edited by Keith; 12-26-2016 at 06:46 AM.
  23. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    It would appear that is slightly/highly misleading as a link.Agriculture is down as 9% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US but I struggle to believe that that is a net figure after taking into consideration the co2 removed from the atmosphere by the crops photosynthesis removing CO2 from the atmosphere by converting co2 back to O2.
    Not an expert, but I think the 9% has mainly to do with livestock and machinery. Don't think the crops are reducing photosynthesis more than the plants that were growing on that land before it was converted for agriculture.

    For example, if you cut down a forest and plant corn is the result a net gain or net loss of vegetation? I would think loss...


    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    On a world scale ,chopping down rainforest to create temporary grassland for beef production in brazil is extremely shortsighted by removing the co2 consumers (plants) to replace them with co2 generators ( animals) before the grasssland becomes semi desert due to lack of shade/soil fertility. WOrldwide developed countries should be paying the rainforest regions to retain them rather than chopping them down to exploit short term mineral/tree wealth and very short term animal production.
    This seems to more or less contradict what you said above and agrees with what I said if I have it right.
  24. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,599
    Location
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Not an expert, but I think the 9% has mainly to do with livestock and machinery. Don't think the crops are reducing photosynthesis more than the plants that were growing on that land before it was converted for agriculture.

    For example, if you cut down a forest and plant corn is the result a net gain or net loss of vegetation? I would think loss..
    Agriculture has aggressively selected for increased yield for hundreds of years , so current cops are a lot better at light interception (selecting for greater leaf area usually called Leaf Area Index),higher growth rates from the light that is intercepted ( selecting genotypes that produce higher yield) and to a lesser extent selecting for harvest index (% of the crop that is the desired crop rather than unusable plant tissue) so that as a result , crops will typically have a lot more biomass production than unimproved native indiginous plants. increased biomass means increased co2 removed from the atmosphere.. You are also assuming that in pre industrial era that natural vegetation wouldn't produce co2 but uneaten vegetation would either die back /be shed as leaves and rot down by the soil bacteria and produce co2 that way.

    As far as animals go , pre-industrial period , the central USA grasslands had millions of bison/horses that are no longer there, these will offset the current number of animals in animal production.



    This seems to more or less contradict what you said above and agrees with what I said if I have it right.
    with regards the rainforests, the vegetation is removing co2 from the atmosphere year on year with a high leaf surface area because of the age/size of the trees. In Brazil, the trees are typically being replaced with soya, or grassland to graze animals. that grassland probably has lower light interception than the preceding trees due to the lower leaf surface area but is eaten by animals that then respire some of the co2 captured by the grassland back out into the atmosphere reducing further the net amount of co2 removed from the atmosphere. those grasslands only have a limited lifespan as soil nutrients are used up , plant growth rate becomes limited, sun hitting the earth together with evapotranspiration from the grassland producing a soil moisture deficit leads to the grassland dieing off and semi desert conditions to arise which then means hardly any co2 gets removed from the atmosphere.
    the carbon in the animals derives from plants that they have eaten and the carbon in the plants derives from the carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis.Animals therefore can't mean a closed system is a net producer of co2 as the carbon in the animals has come from the co2.The more animals there are however the lower net c02 removal from the atmosphere will be.
  25. #100
    Ok, but agriculture involves more than just crops and livestock sitting there on the land doing what they do.

    The products need to be cared for, with pesticides (that are produced in fuel-burning plants), machinery (that burns fuel), and then transported and processed by more machinery (that burns more fuel). So just talking about what the plants and animals do is not describing the whole effect of agriculture on CO2.

    It's a huge industry, and perhaps most if not all of that 9% increase ascribed to it is due to the fuel-burning machinery that supports it?
  26. #101
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    with an B.Sc (Hons) in Agricultural science ,I would think that I am not the layman that you seem to think i am with regards CO2 production by agriculture. Hence the fact that i picked on that part of the figures because its part that i can make informed comment on.

    I didn't know. Thanks for setting me straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    You may find this link interesting http://www.rdmag.com/article/2016/11...e-growth-rates .
    It's an interesting article with an unexpected observation and some sensationalism thrown in.
    It seems the scientific conclusions are here in bold (added by me):

    We’ve shown the increase in terrestrial carbon uptake is happening, and with a plausible explanation why. But we don’t know exactly where the carbon sink is increasing the most, how long this increase will last, or what it means for the future of Earth’s climate.”

    Underline for emphasis provided by me.
    Plausibility is a useful "gut check" on a result, but it is NOT a scientific result. Plausibility serves to identify big, glaring mistakes in a result, but nothing more.

    E.g. if you asked me how high a person can throw a baseball, I can do some research and make some calculations and produce a number. My plausibility check would be something like, "It's higher than most people are tall, and lower than a skyscraper, so the result I produced is plausible." My result could still be wrong, but not in an immediately obvious way.

    The whole rest of that sentence is literally "dunno."
  27. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,599
    Location
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ok, but agriculture involves more than just crops and livestock sitting there on the land doing what they do.

    The products need to be cared for, with pesticides (that are produced in fuel-burning plants), machinery (that burns fuel), and then transported and processed by more machinery (that burns more fuel). So just talking about what the plants and animals do is not describing the whole effect of agriculture on CO2.

    It's a huge industry, and perhaps most if not all of that 9% increase ascribed to it is due to the fuel-burning machinery that supports it?
    the link that i gave MMM shows that atmospheric CO2 is plateauing due to plants taking up more co2 and converting it to biomass. Considering how much co2 is being pumped into the atmosphere by non agricultural means its difficult to see how total co2 is plateauing if agriculture is a net contributor of co2 to the atmosphere.
  28. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith View Post
    the link that i gave MMM shows that atmospheric CO2 is plateauing
    I can see how the graph might make you think that, but what it actually shows is that the acceleration in CO2 levels is plateauing, as per the label on the y-axis (Atmospheric C02 growth rate).

    CO2 levels are still increasing every year.
  29. #104
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Been away for xmas but would like to resume my discussion with poop...

    They should, but they're hard to find. Usually they just cherry pick elements of the story like guy in OP and say 'ha! if you just look at this and ignore/discount everything else, it's not convincing.'
    It's tempting to assume that because clever people say it's happening and dumb people say it's not, that the clever people are right. But that isn't a guarantee. I reckon the average IQ of a religious person is lower than that of an atheist. The atheist might still be wrong.

    Consensus at least is a sensible guide to what is going on, as compared to believing the opposite of whatever the consensus is.
    Yes, but consensus should not be presented as fact.

    Depends on how you define intelligence then.
    Of course. The problem we have here is that any measure of intelligence we try to use is naturally biased towards humans. You use language as an example. Dolphins have very sophisticated language. It might not be as sophisticated as ours, but perhaps dolphins haven't evolved comparable language because they don't need to. We have words for so many things, dolphins don't need a sound to describe cup, plate, computer, car etc. The list of things we have words for that dolphins have no concept of is enormous. I feel this is a poor measure of intelligence, especially when you consider that perhaps dolphins are better at communicating via body language than we are.

    Brain/body ratio is another poor method imo. We see the results correlate with our biased assumptions.

    Intelligence for me is the ability to understand one's environment. Manipulation of environment is a physical ability, understanding is mental. We probably are the most intelligent species on the planet. But it's not a given.

    The point is, of course, is that scientists should say the same about climate change. The evidence supports the theory, but we haven't got the answers because our methods of measurement are limited.

    If you wait until catastrophe happens before you accept the theory, then you've lost your chance.
    Well I don't think the residents of Tuvalau are waiting around for it to happen. They already have permission to evacuate to New Zealand if and when the time comes. There isn't really anything we can do to save Tuvalu, if the theory is correct. But it would at least serve as a wake up call, and the next vulnerable islands can prepare knowing that it's inevitable, rather than debatable. The deniers would have to acknowledge that they are wrong and there are fewer obstacles standing in the way of environmental reform.

    ...either you trust science or you don't.
    I trust science when it makes predictions based on facts that hold up to experiment. I don't trust science when it's mere theory. Do you trust string theory? How about M-theory? There was a time people trusted Newton's gravity.

    If an engineer says this bridge will hold 20t, I don't go 'wait this guy can't prove that, he's never tested it, so I'm going to drive my 25t truck over it cause he might be wrong.' I just take his word and act accordingly.
    They test bridges before you can drive over them. The engineer who designed the bridge might not test it, he might rely on maths alone, but someone will test it, assuming you live in a country like USA, or UK. And besides, even if it wasn't tested, the limit is based on maths and engineering knowledge that stands the test of experiment. This is a poor analogy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #105
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The fact that this is the response to what Keith said is the mountain that scientists have to climb and why many scientists don't see the point in talking about their fields with laymen who don't have any true ambition to understand what the scientists have done or what the results mean.

    If you don't understand the data, that's one thing. If you assert that your lack of understanding means the conclusions are false, then that's a non-sequitur until you can demonstrate that the data is at fault, and not your understanding of the data.
    Specifically, I was referring to this...

    On a world scale ,chopping down rainforest to create temporary grassland for beef production in brazil is extremely shortsighted by removing the co2 consumers (plants) to replace them with co2 generators ( animals) before the grasssland becomes semi desert due to lack of shade/soil fertility. WOrldwide developed countries should be paying the rainforest regions to retain them rather than chopping them down to exploit short term mineral/tree wealth and very short term animal production.
    Deforestation is, in my opinion, the driving force behind climate change. Not only are we creating more CO2, we're removing the planet's natural ability to remove CO2 from the atompshere. What's wrong with trying to identify the aspect of human behaviour that has the most effect? Why have you taken issue with Keith's comments? Because he argues a pie chart is misleading? I too find it very hard to believe that, in net terms relating to greenhouse emissions, argiculture is a little less than half as dirty as industry. Are they trying to suggest that a field of farting cows will produce enough methane to challenge the emissions of half a field of factories?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's tempting to assume that because clever people say it's happening and dumb people say it's not, that the clever people are right.
    Any argument should be evaluated on its own merits, independent of who is making it. The collection of arguments put forth in favour of AGW are stronger than the arguments against it imo (and also in the opinion of the experts who are more qualified to evaluate the evidence than I am).

    The fact that the deniers aren't experts is irrelevant (though perhaps telling) - what's relevant is that their arguments are incomplete - to use the guy in OP as an example, he focuses on one bit of evidence and says 'it's not determinant' while ignoring all the other evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Intelligence for me is the ability to understand one's environment.
    Ok, well when a dolphin can show us it understands more about any part of the world (aside from other dolphins where I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt) than we do, then I'll take back what I said.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Manipulation of environment is a physical ability
    On the contrary, it's almost entirely mental. The body is just the machine that does the moving; the real work goes on in the brain. The neural computations needed to coordinate the timing and force of the muscle contractions required to properly use (e.g.,) a screwdriver are enormous. When these neurons are destroyed, humans develop a condition known as apraxia, which is (grossly put) the inability to manipulate objects. There is no animal equivalent for this condition.

    The fact that many actions strike us as effortless belies the sheer complexity of the task in terms of neural resources required. Consider that we have had a computer that can beat the world chess champion for over 20 years now but we haven't yet built a robot that can match the sophisticated movements of the human hand. And that's because of our advanced brain, not because our hand has some physical advantage over a robot hand (if anything the robot hand has all they physical advantages - certainly in terms of strength and endurance).


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We probably are the most intelligent species on the planet. But it's not a given.
    It is by any definition of intelligence you or anyone else has offered so far.

    But if you want to be philosophical about it, then yes it's possible that dolphins are smarter than us and we just don't know it. In any case this is all interesting but really irrelevant to the discussion on AGW...



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well I don't think the residents of Tuvalau are waiting around for it to happen. They already have permission to evacuate to New Zealand if and when the time comes. There isn't really anything we can do to save Tuvalu, if the theory is correct. But it would at least serve as a wake up call, and the next vulnerable islands can prepare knowing that it's inevitable, rather than debatable. The deniers would have to acknowledge that they are wrong
    The bolded would be true if the deniers were using logic and reasoning and looking at the big picture but they've already shown they're not. So my guess is the whole world could go under and they'd still try to argue it wasn't AGW that caused it and that we should keep using oil.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I trust science when it makes predictions based on facts that hold up to experiment.
    If this is your criterion, then you will never trust science to answer the question of AGW and can only throw up your hands; scientists cannot do an empirical study of AGW because there is no way to control all the variables. The best they can do is make observations and model the systems involved. That may make the science less rigorous than experimental science, but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-28-2016 at 10:01 AM.
  32. #107
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    On the contrary, it's almost entirely mental. The body is just the machine that does the moving; the real work goes on in the brain.
    Well yes, but if complexity of movement is one aspect of intelligence, then we're way behind some lifeforms out there. The hummingbird springs to mind, with its tiny brain. Houseflies, with their ability to process information so much quicker than we can. I feel this method is flawed, not least because movement is subconcious, and that conscious thought is where intelligence is at... the awareness of the environment and understanding of what it is.

    Our thumb gives us quite an advantage over a dolphin when it comes to manipulation. They can't build a computer, even if they knew how to. They are perfectly evolved for their environment. Are we perfectly evolved for our environment? Arguably.

    If this is your criterion...
    I thought this was once the criterion of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I thought this was once the criterion of science.
    It is ideal, but not always practical, to do experiments.

    The discovery that the Earth is round was not found by experimentation, for example. It was based on astronomical and other observations iirc.
  34. #109
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It is ideal, but not always practical, to do experiments.

    The discovery that the Earth is round was not found by experimentation, for example. It was based on astronomical and other observations iirc.
    Well it's provable. Observation is acceptable. We can look at it from afar and observe it is round. Of course, there's still room for the ultra-paranoid to argue that we're being lied to, that the photos are faked by NASA and all that nonsense, but we're no longer in an age where the world being round is "consensus"... it is proven beyond doubt. As a side note, the concept of "round" could become a little fuzzy once we can start to observe deeper dimensions, but it's certainly "non-flat" in geometry.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well it's provable. Observation is acceptable. We can look at it from afar and observe it is round.
    Ok, but that's not science either by the definition of 'doing experiments'. So why should we accept that observation and not the observations and deductions of climate scientists?
  36. #111
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ok, but that's not science either by the definition of 'doing experiments'. So why should we accept that observation and not the observations and deductions of climate scientists?
    We can do experiments and prove the world is round if we want to. The theory will hold. Sending a satellite up to take images is doing an experiment, our observation and our agreement on what "round" means is confirmation. We theorise the world is round, so we take a look and see it is round. Observation is how we confirm an experiment. That's fine by me, so long as we have faith in the means of observation.

    The problem with climate change is that when we "look" at it, we're not trying to agree on the definition of a concept as simple as "round". The theory is much more complex, and therefore is much more difficult to prove. That is why it remains unproven. In order for it to be proven, it must make predictions that can be confirmed. That's why I say Tuvalu is probably going to be the event that proves it beyond the doubt of reasonable people. That's not something that is open to manipulation... it will either be claimed by the sea or it won't.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sending a satellite up to take images is doing an experiment
    If you think this, then you don't understand what an experiment is. An experiment is when we manipulate one or more variables while holding the rest of them constant. An example would be giving two groups of patients different treatments for their disease and measuring which works better.

    Sending up a satellite doesn't manipulate any of the variables. It is making observations, not doing an experiment.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The problem with climate change is that when we "look" at it, we're not trying to agree on the definition of a concept as simple as "round". The theory is much more complex, and therefore is much more difficult to prove. That is why it remains unproven. In order for it to be proven, it must make predictions that can be confirmed. That's why I say Tuvalu is probably going to be the event that proves it beyond the doubt of reasonable people. That's not something that is open to manipulation... it will either be claimed by the sea or it won't.
    What you're arguing is that it will take a dramatic event to change people's minds. That may be true, but that's not because the theory needs a dramatic event to have explanatory power. It simply needs to make logical deductions about how things work, and to have the data jibe with the model. If you're saying it needs to accurately predict things to be a good model, you're right. And as far as I'm aware it is already doing that - temperature continues to rise.

    Perhaps, with all due respect, this discussion of how to evaluate a scientific argument is a good example of why experts in science are better able to judge the merits of a theory than are laypeople.
  38. #113
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    And as far as I'm aware it is already doing that - temperature continues to rise.
    But my point is that this is not an "observation" in the same sense that looking at the earth is. There is a problem in that the round earth theory only makes one prediction - that the earth is round. It doesn't even matter why. It's such a simple theory that can either be proven or disproven with one simple observation. If the earth is round, then round earth theory is confirmed. Climate change makes predictions that can be observed, but these observations can be the result of other factors too. Warming over half a century could be the result of solar activity. It could be the result of ever-increasing accuracy in regards to measurement. It could be outright manipulation of figures. There are lots of theories that can predict warming, not all are correct just because warming is happening.

    When there is an event of the scale of an island nation being claimed by the ocean, then we know for certain that sea levels are rising. That alone doesn't prove man-made climate change is to blame, but we at least know that we have a very serious problem that needs addressing. At this point, the most viable theory, which is indeed climate change, will determine how we go about tackling the problem.

    Perhaps, with all due respect, this discussion of how to evaluate a scientific argument is a good example of why experts in science are better able to judge the merits of a theory than are laypeople.
    Yes, but the problem with "leave it to those in the know" is that we have to put our trust not just in the sincerity of those in the know, but also in the entire system that educates them. That leaves the layman vulnerable to manipulation. What happens when you take your car to a garage and they think you haven't got a clue? They create expensive problems that need fixing. Basic economics.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Climate change makes predictions that can be observed, but these observations can be the result of other factors too. Warming over half a century could be the result of solar activity. It could be the result of ever-increasing accuracy in regards to measurement. It could be outright manipulation of figures. There are lots of theories that can predict warming, not all are correct just because warming is happening.
    All of these alternatives have been disproven afaik (apart from a conspiracy to falsify the data, which is where the deniers all seem to end up). It's not like climate scientists are a bunch of idiots who have no clue what they're talking about. Yet we're supposed to ignore them and instead accept the arguments of people who aren't experts in the topic area, often don't understand how science works, and even more often have clear personal agendas for being deniers. It's beyond absurd.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes, but the problem with "leave it to those in the know" is that we have to put our trust not just in the sincerity of those in the know, but also in the entire system that educates them. That leaves the layman vulnerable to manipulation. What happens when you take your car to a garage and they think you haven't got a clue? They create expensive problems that need fixing. Basic economics.
    We're not talking about taking one particular climate scientist at his word, it's a large group of people.

    To make your analogy more apt, if you take your car to 100 different mechanics and 98 of them say it's the same problem, most people will probably accept their word at that point. But if you're a 'mechanic denier', then you either have to accept they're probably right (which is unpalatable), or engage in more and more elaborate conspiracy theories to explain how it is they all happen to come to the same conclusion independently. Or, you can argue that we're just not training mechanics like we used to. Or some other rubbish. It's like 'it can't be the head gasket, that's expensive, ergo (insert lame argument here)'
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-28-2016 at 02:51 PM.
  40. #115
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,034
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes, but the problem with "leave it to those in the know" is that we have to put our trust not just in the sincerity of those in the know, but also in the entire system that educates them. That leaves the layman vulnerable to manipulation.
    Yup, this is a basic limitation for laymen. The only other choice is to become an expert which takes a fantastic amount of effort and resources. It would be a much better idea for people to specialize and rely on other specialists to fill in the gaps. Basic economics.

    What happens when you take your car to a garage and they think you haven't got a clue? They create expensive problems that need fixing. Basic economics.
    You could learn something about cars.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  41. #116
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,356
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's tempting to assume that because clever people say it's happening and dumb people say it's not, that the clever people are right. But that isn't a guarantee. I reckon the average IQ of a religious person is lower than that of an atheist. The atheist might still be wrong.
    The atheist might be wrong indeed, but we're talking about probabilities here. Someone claiming kings might beat aces isn't wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes, but consensus should not be presented as fact.
    The consensus is a relevant point because the opposition claims there's controversy among experts, which there isn't.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 12-28-2016 at 07:49 PM.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  42. #117
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    All of these alternatives have been disproven afaik
    [citation needed]

    To make your analogy more apt, if you take your car to 100 different mechanics and 98 of them say it's the same problem
    The first mechanic you visit will create a problem when he first "inspects" the engine, along with diagnosing the original problem. The next mechanic you visit will confirm the two problems you have, and "find" another problem. The next one confirms the three problems you have, and "finds" yet another.

    I'm sure if you think about this hard enough, while smoking enough spliffs, you can see where I'm coming from.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #118
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    ugh sorry I clicked edit instead of quote, fucking mod powers.

    lemme try and fix that shit.

    *fixed
    Last edited by OngBonga; 12-28-2016 at 07:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #119
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    The consensus is a relevant point because the opposition claims there's controversy among experts, which there isn't.
    Depends how you define "expert". If simply being a climate change denier excludes one from being an "expert", then of course there will be universal consensus amongst "experts".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The first mechanic you visit will create a problem when he first "inspects" the engine, along with diagnosing the original problem. The next mechanic you visit will confirm the two problems you have, and "find" another problem. The next one confirms the three problems you have, and "finds" yet another.

    I'm sure if you think about this hard enough, while smoking enough spliffs, you can see where I'm coming from.
    Hahaha.
  46. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Depends how you define "expert". If simply being a climate change denier excludes one from being an "expert", then of course there will be universal consensus amongst "experts".
    Never heard of a denier being stripped of his PhD for his stance. Will have to start watching Breitbart more closely.
  47. #122
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,356
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Depends how you define "expert". If simply being a climate change denier excludes one from being an "expert", then of course there will be universal consensus amongst "experts".
    Luckily that's not the case. The 2% sceptics have consisted mainly of petroleum geologists and meteorologists. Climate researchers have always been in pretty much total agreement.

    This denialist stuff about these exact same questions was trendy like 10 years ago, wonder why it's back in fashion now.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  48. #123
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,767
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Related, but unrelated:

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...columns-is-on/

    Carry on.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  49. #124
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    Related, but unrelated:
    Agreed
  50. #125
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The following was forwarded through my department and around physics and astronomy departments throughout the country to collectively educate physicists about the state of knowledge on climate change.

    To be perfectly candid, it was also told to us that there will be a letter compiling this information and signed by physicists of the USA to send to President elect Trump demanding he take action on climate change during his coming presidency. There are additional links and a password to sign said petition which I will not be sharing.

    For what it's worth, the links were sent with an avenue to sign the petition, but it was made clear that whether or not we sign is our own choice.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

    http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/1507...ce=govdelivery

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/11/4/048002
  51. #126
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    6,937
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    There's too much going on in those links.
    They seem to be conflating 3 different topics: Global Warming, Anthropogenic causes of GW, and whether this is something to keep watching or something to take action on.

    It fails to cite that there are both positive and negative results of GW, and that the scale of action which must be taken in order to make a difference is hard to justify in cost-benefit analysis.

    I'm not signing the petition.
    I don't think it's appropriate to make demands to a national leader. That person has access to information which I do not. It is hubris to assume that whatever I know is more important than what I don't know. Also, the petition tries to elevate physicists' thoughts to the level of climatologists'. Our opinions here are only of slightly greater weight than anyone else's, and only if we've applied our scientific rigor to alleviate our ignorance.
  52. #127
    I agree with your assessment. Your point on the "demands" is a good point. I think it hurts the departments' credibility.
  53. #128
  54. #129
    What I think is clear is that none of the models for the future have a high degree of certainty, and that making significant enough changes to thwart AGW would have more dire economic/social consequences than responding to the issues at a later date.

    An example of the latter is that maybe sea levels will rise enough that NYC would flood. It'll still be a helluva lot cheaper to dam and dike and gate the city than to today leave enough oil/gas/coal in the ground to keep sea levels from rising in the first place. Ability to respond to AGW issues would also be higher in a more prosperous future, causing less suffering then than doing so now would.
  55. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Always prudent to go to the original source when quoting the 'lying media':

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...70840612463317

    The survey participants were all members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta. Alberta is the province in Canada where I'm from. It holds the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia and is highly dependent on oil production for its economy.

    Members of the APEGA nearly all work in the oil, mining, or gas industries, so it's a very biased sample of "climate scientists". I doubt any of them actually do research on it, unless it's funded by industry.

    I'm surprised such a high % of this particular sample actually believe in AGW tbh.
  56. #131
    Figured you would do it for me. I really don't have a dog in this fight. If anything the dog is that AGW is real.

    Still, geoscientists are geoscientists regardless of where they're from. It can easily be the case that geoscientists in places that aren't affected by policies attempting to thwart AGW think AGW is a big deal and ones who are don't, all for reasons that could be unrelated to the actual science.
  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What I think is clear is that none of the models for the future have a high degree of certainty, and that making significant enough changes to thwart AGW would have more dire economic/social consequences than responding to the issues at a later date.

    An example of the latter is that maybe sea levels will rise enough that NYC would flood. It'll still be a helluva lot cheaper to dam and dike and gate the city than to today leave enough oil/gas/coal in the ground to keep sea levels from rising in the first place. Ability to respond to AGW issues would also be higher in a more prosperous future, causing less suffering then than doing so now would.
    There's something to be said for this argument, as it isn't at all obvious that the short-term economic costs won't be tremendous. However, there's a couple of counters to that: 1) The short-term costs could be outweighed by the long-term costs of not doing anything; it's not just about shoring up NYC, but the entire coast of every inhabited country (and that's just one possible consequence); 2) Continuously pumping GHG into the atmosphere could send us to a point of no return where a feedback loop pushes the planet beyond 'a bit warmer' to 'a lot warmer' to 'uninhabitable'. The good news is that it probably won't get that far until we've all been dead a while, but that's not really the kind of legacy I want to be a part of.

    The real thorn in all this is that it's impossible to predict the future with any degree of accuracy given how complex a system the earth is and the sheer volume of factors that interact to produce climate.
  58. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Still, geoscientists are geoscientists regardless of where they're from.

    There's a difference between an engineer whose job is to find new places to drill for oil, and a geoscientist who works in academia doing research on the climate. The latter would have a lot more knowledge of climate than the former. THOSE are the guys who should be surveyed.
  59. #134
    I assume "geoscientists" means phds in their field. If it doesn't, I'm an economist shortly after I get my bachelors.
  60. #135
    Geophysicists study the earth (e.g., soil, rocks, magnetic fields), not climate. That's why they work for the oil and mining industries, not doing research on climate change.

    Find a survey of people who are dedicated experts on climate change, not just with a degree in the general field, and definitely not ones who work in industry, be it oil, mining, solar power, nuclear power, windmills, etc. etc..
  61. #136
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,356
    Location
    Finding my game
    Y'all should read the 3rd link MMM posted, it's a systematic review on the consensus.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  62. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Y'all should read the 3rd link MMM posted, it's a systematic review on the consensus.
    Looks pretty convincing to me.

    I agree with MMM on his two points though: 1) reading three links, even if you're qualified to understand and evaluate them, doesn't make you an expert that is then qualified to advise the head of state; and 2) sending a letter to 'demand' action is out of line and not likely to produce results. You don't 'demand' things from your head of state - 'beseech' or 'implore' would send just as strong a message with the appropriate respect, and be much more likely to get taken seriously.

    Then again, no-one realistically expects Trump to do anything about the climate no matter what words they use. So saying 'demand' probably is designed as a way to embarrass him when he ignores it and things get worse (assuming they do get worse).
  63. #138
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    Then again, no-one realistically expects Trump to do anything about the climate no matter what words they use.
    Can you please tell me what Obama has done about climate change, and what you would have expected Clinton to do?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #139
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Also, isn't it about time poop got himself an avatar?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Can you please tell me what Obama has done about climate change, and what you would have expected Clinton to do?
    Obama signed the Paris Accord and ratified it. I expect Trump will be doing his best to dodge it given the guy he appointed to the EPA is a climate change sceptic who's repeatedly sued the EPA in the past.

    Don't know what Clinton would have done. Probably not much of anything.
  66. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Also, isn't it about time poop got himself an avatar?
    Don't see the point of avatars. Well ok, I see the point, I just can't be bothered.
  67. #142
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Obama signed the Paris Accord and ratified it. I expect Trump will be doing his best to dodge it given the guy he appointed to the EPA is a climate change sceptic who's repeatedly sued the EPA in the past.
    Of course Obama signed it. It doesn't come into force until 2020, so Obama hasn't got to worry about the economic consequences. Trump will be in power when this comes into force.

    Furthermore, this agreement is just a bunch of aims, there are no specific commitments other than to be "ambitious" and "progressive".

    It's a junk agreement that is designed to make it look like they're doing something.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #143
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    Any leader who makes actual progress in fighting climate change won't be in power for long, because the economy will be in the shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Trump will be in power when this comes into force.
    Maybe, maybe not. Assuming he isn't impeached, assassinated, otherwise dead, or quits, he will be just about finished his one and possibly only term by then.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's a junk agreement that is designed to make it look like they're doing something.
    Maybe, maybe not. We won't know until we see how different countries respond to it. For example, the Kyoto agreement had its targets met by the EU. So it wasn't just for show.
  70. #145
    Found poopy's new avatar

  71. #146
    That's cute.

    Hey isn't that bet over where you get to pick other people's avatars? I thought it was for one month.
  72. #147
    Oh sorry it was six weeks. Let's see, Nov. 8 + 42 days = Dec. 20th = Time's up!
  73. #148
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,825
    Location
    England
    We should just ignore him until he conforms.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #149
    Well I'm never getting one if you do that.
  75. #150
    Oh don't worry, Trump is making his world better whether he likes it or not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •