Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "doctor" analogy (AGW)

cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 11:30:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was watching one of greenman's "Climate Denier Crock of the Week" segments, where there were two people arguing about the AGW "consensus." The skeptic argued somewhat correctly how science is never done by consensus. I mildly disagree with that notion, because I d believe in consensus, but in a different way (see below).

I want the AGW nuts to debate me on this, and, if skeptics want to join in too, they can, but I want to put this issue to bed, if at least only in my own head.

Now, after the skeptic finished his argument, the older gentleman went on and used the doctor analogy. He stated that, when one goes to the doctor, the doctors have a consensual treatment for you based on your condition, and that most people accept that form of treatment. Of course, if we accept the treatment given to us by our doctors, why not accept the scientific consensus on AGW?

As you know, I have some problems with this analogy, and are as follows:

Argument 1: Doctors are very often wrong.
From extreme cases of malpractice, to common misdiagnoses, we are often severely harmed by a doctor prescribing things that have nothing to do with the problem. These things often put patients in trouble and kill them. My mother, for example, was misdiagnosed for cancer on multiple occasions. Doctors are not always right. The difference now is that we have one shot to get the answer rght. Because we only have one shot, misdiagnosing the problem and doingsomething that might not need to be done can prove harmful to the well being of the planet. Now,in the field of medicine, something that saves 1000 and kills one is not a big issue, but with the planet, it is, epecially when you consider the stronger arguments below.

Argument 2: Experimental vs hypothetical
Medical science has a long history of advance through experimentaton, trial, and error. We've tried many different cures for many different diseases. It's an incredible reliable field because, while we don't know everything, we can repeat a desired result over and over with each patient treated. Most medicines go through the pipeline through experimental treatments until they are shown to be reliable. With climate science, however, we don't have the same level of reliability. We have never tested the proposed solutions in the past to know that they will work. To take that further, the models are unreliable in estimating atmospheric properties, ocean currents, and future conditions. As I said in Argument 1, if we change things, we have one shot to get the right answer in the face of a gain or loss of trillions of dollars.

Argument 3: What is the consensus even based on?
Scientists don't exactly poll each other. So, when we're talking consensus, it isn't even a scientific term, but a media term. Mixing science with media is the very thing that scientists criticize skeptics for doing. Consensus usually means when people unanimously agree and stop arguing about the subject, not when newsweek does a poll of scientists.

Argument 4: What are we even talking about?
What is the consensus even on? Is it on that the planet is warming? Humans are the primary cause? Ok then, what is "primary?" 50%? Is it on climate sensitivity? If so, what is the fully agreed on number? Is it simply on climate heading to disaster? Again, what is this consensus on and where is it specifically defined if you do come up with something?
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To answer your third and fourth questions, two separate surveys of expert climatologists who are actively publishing research on climate change were conducted. One study asked them, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The other asked if they supported AGW as defined by the IPCC. In both cases, 97-98% of respondents said yes.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 1:32:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?

the alternatives right now are quite expensive, and they will become more expensive the greater the demand there is for them (basic supply and demand). Hybrid cars and electric cars are ridiculously expensive.

Plus, actually one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gases are cows, not cars. This would include milk and cheese products? Do you believe everyone should go for a vegan diet, which is incredibly unhealthy If not done properly?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Let's game this out: Let's assume for a moment that the vast, vast majority of scientists who study this stuff for a living say that it is highly likely that humans are responsible for significant global climate change due to some of the stuff we do, such as our chosen forms of energy etc.

That being said let us further hypothesize that almost all of these professionals point out that the earth's climate, while variable, has been relatively stable the last 14,000 years or so (the time humans have developed societies). Again this is accurate.

So now we have before us the possibility that human activity will be directly responsible for changing our climate in the following ways:

1. Unknown end-points
2. Likely irreversible in countless generations time
3. May happen very quickly once some "tipping points" are passed

Now of course it would be expensive to halt our burning of fossil fuels and it would even be expensive simply to majorly modify our energy habits. That will be hard on our economy.

BUT, what if the climate, say, the U.S. has known for about all of its entire history were to change in unexpected ways. Remember our "breadbasket" is largely in the Central Valley of California which has exactly ONE thing going for it as an agricultural center and that is a long growing season. There is very little water available. So let's warm the planet and decrease the Sierra Snowpack causing massive water shortages in parts of California and let's add the possibility of droughts into the mix, and then let's move our plant hardiness zones northward (as they are doing right now).

What do you think will be the most likely outcome of that scenario for the U.S.?

Will there be more food for Americans or less? What effect will that have on our economy? Will we relish driving our SUV's and leaving our lights on all the time when we have problems feeding our country?

The game here is one of "gambling". We can bet our entire future that the thing which scientists tell us is real and likely due largely to OUR actions (and hence will CONTINUE unless we significantly ALTER our actions) will be "ok" based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL BE OK, or work to maintain a "climatic status quo" which so far has served us for a couple hundred years.

I'm not a gambler, so I know what I will choose.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:23:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 2:13:53 PM, Thaumaturgy wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Let's game this out: Let's assume for a moment that the vast, vast majority of scientists who study this stuff for a living say that it is highly likely that humans are responsible for significant global climate change due to some of the stuff we do, such as our chosen forms of energy etc.

That being said let us further hypothesize that almost all of these professionals point out that the earth's climate, while variable, has been relatively stable the last 14,000 years or so (the time humans have developed societies). Again this is accurate.

So now we have before us the possibility that human activity will be directly responsible for changing our climate in the following ways:

1. Unknown end-points
2. Likely irreversible in countless generations time
3. May happen very quickly once some "tipping points" are passed

Now of course it would be expensive to halt our burning of fossil fuels and it would even be expensive simply to majorly modify our energy habits. That will be hard on our economy.

BUT, what if the climate, say, the U.S. has known for about all of its entire history were to change in unexpected ways. Remember our "breadbasket" is largely in the Central Valley of California which has exactly ONE thing going for it as an agricultural center and that is a long growing season. There is very little water available. So let's warm the planet and decrease the Sierra Snowpack causing massive water shortages in parts of California and let's add the possibility of droughts into the mix, and then let's move our plant hardiness zones northward (as they are doing right now).

What do you think will be the most likely outcome of that scenario for the U.S.?

Will there be more food for Americans or less? What effect will that have on our economy? Will we relish driving our SUV's and leaving our lights on all the time when we have problems feeding our country?

The game here is one of "gambling". We can bet our entire future that the thing which scientists tell us is real and likely due largely to OUR actions (and hence will CONTINUE unless we significantly ALTER our actions) will be "ok" based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL BE OK, or work to maintain a "climatic status quo" which so far has served us for a couple hundred years.

I'm not a gambler, so I know what I will choose.

Sounds a lot like Pascal's Wager.

Also, climate engineering solutions can be implemented cheaper than a switch away from carbon emissions and methane gas. Getting down to near zero will cost trillions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:26:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:32:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?

the alternatives right now are quite expensive, and they will become more expensive the greater the demand there is for them (basic supply and demand). Hybrid cars and electric cars are ridiculously expensive.

Investment in green technology and carbon pricing will result in cheaper manufacturing costs, hence more supply. Household energy prices in general will be more than cut in half by 2050.

Plus, actually one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gases are cows, not cars. This would include milk and cheese products? Do you believe everyone should go for a vegan diet, which is incredibly unhealthy If not done properly?

There is 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Too late. It's already happening. Instead of allowing the African nations to exploit their coal and oil, we are making them sign Kyoto and emissions cap and reduction agreements. These third world countries apart of the UN are, of course, going to sign these agreements because we are their lifeline. The REASON we are their lifeline is because we FORCE them to depend on us. Now, we have cap-and-trade that people keep pushing that will make them depend EVEN MORE.

And, there are the poor without electricity, lighting fires inside of their homes and can't get a decent hospital to go to with the ability to care for simple conditions. Why? Energy is so expensive. Even if solar does pay off over 10-15 years(not including maintenance on solar panels, by the way), it doesn't avoid the fact that these countries can't afford these new technologies that we are asking them tot implement.

They are the ones who suffer. If we put this in the worldwide system, the poor will get poorer because of through-the-roof taxes. You get estimates from 1% to 20% of global GDP. If it is the latter, this will be a devastating blow to capitalist economies.

Now, I will concede that there is a cost if the sea continues to rise, but it's not near 20% GDP over a century.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 2:57:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 1:26:03 PM, WriterDave wrote:
To answer your third and fourth questions, two separate surveys of expert climatologists who are actively publishing research on climate change were conducted. One study asked them, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The other asked if they supported AGW as defined by the IPCC. In both cases, 97-98% of respondents said yes.

Actually, I already debated another on the forum on this. The 97% refers to "well published climatologists." It does not refer to "all climatologists. If you look at the NAoS report, climatologists who have posted 1-100 works actually make up about a quarter of the entire population. The other one, it was about 80% of all climatologists, and slightly lessof scientists in Earth science.

This is not to mention that there is a very heavy participation bias (only 30% of invitees took part in the online survey you refer to).

Not to mention, pops the question: Do they agree with everything in the IPCC? Or, do they just agree in general? Did the poll even ask?

This is the problem with online polls and seeking positions in general. You don't take a poll of a few hundred of people and say "this represents all of the Climatologists on Earth." No.

The only time that Consensus was done using a poll in the past was when the Nazis had 200 scientists show how the Jews were inferior.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:03:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 2:51:04 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Too late. It's already happening. Instead of allowing the African nations to exploit their coal and oil, we are making them sign Kyoto and emissions cap and reduction agreements. These third world countries apart of the UN are, of course, going to sign these agreements because we are their lifeline. The REASON we are their lifeline is because we FORCE them to depend on us. Now, we have cap-and-trade that people keep pushing that will make them depend EVEN MORE.

And, there are the poor without electricity, lighting fires inside of their homes and can't get a decent hospital to go to with the ability to care for simple conditions. Why? Energy is so expensive. Even if solar does pay off over 10-15 years(not including maintenance on solar panels, by the way), it doesn't avoid the fact that these countries can't afford these new technologies that we are asking them tot implement.

They are the ones who suffer. If we put this in the worldwide system, the poor will get poorer because of through-the-roof taxes. You get estimates from 1% to 20% of global GDP. If it is the latter, this will be a devastating blow to capitalist economies.

Now, I will concede that there is a cost if the sea continues to rise, but it's not near 20% GDP over a century.

I'm not aware that anyone's asking those poor, energy-less people, who I'm sure you would claim would be crapping in golden toilets if we'd all just let the market do its thing, to change their way of life. Why would we? They're not emitting most of the carbon.

The highest reliable estimate I could find of carbon cap GDP effect versus BAU by 2030 was 2.15%. That estimate was an outlier; all other estimates were below 1% versus BAU. That's assuming that there would be NO significant damages from global warming if we did nothing, which you concede is not the case. In fact, we're looking at a total of $20 trillion (in 2002 dollars) in damages by 2100, and $75 trillion by 2200, if we do nothing. By acting now, we more than halve both of those figures.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:10:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 2:57:46 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:26:03 PM, WriterDave wrote:
To answer your third and fourth questions, two separate surveys of expert climatologists who are actively publishing research on climate change were conducted. One study asked them, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The other asked if they supported AGW as defined by the IPCC. In both cases, 97-98% of respondents said yes.

Actually, I already debated another on the forum on this. The 97% refers to "well published climatologists." It does not refer to "all climatologists. If you look at the NAoS report, climatologists who have posted 1-100 works actually make up about a quarter of the entire population. The other one, it was about 80% of all climatologists, and slightly lessof scientists in Earth science.

This is not to mention that there is a very heavy participation bias (only 30% of invitees took part in the online survey you refer to).

Not to mention, pops the question: Do they agree with everything in the IPCC? Or, do they just agree in general? Did the poll even ask?

This is the problem with online polls and seeking positions in general. You don't take a poll of a few hundred of people and say "this represents all of the Climatologists on Earth." No.

The only time that Consensus was done using a poll in the past was when the Nazis had 200 scientists show how the Jews were inferior.

Really? Only 12 posts, and you're pulling a Godwin?

The survey was of 3,146 earth scientists, more than 90% of whom had a PhD. Even if you allow active researchers who don't know more than the basics about climate, or climatologists who have sat on their asses for several decades rather than doing any actual studies, the consensus stands at about 90%. That makes your position a fringe.

And you evidently haven't heard the lists of "scientists" that AGW deniers and young earth creationists constantly publish today.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:22:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 2:26:29 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:32:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?

the alternatives right now are quite expensive, and they will become more expensive the greater the demand there is for them (basic supply and demand). Hybrid cars and electric cars are ridiculously expensive.

Investment in green technology and carbon pricing will result in cheaper manufacturing costs, hence more supply. Household energy prices in general will be more than cut in half by 2050.

Prices can only go so low. The supply of silicon can only be so much. There are inherent manufacturing costs that can't be lowered due to thermodynamic limitations.


Plus, actually one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gases are cows, not cars. This would include milk and cheese products? Do you believe everyone should go for a vegan diet, which is incredibly unhealthy If not done properly?

There is 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane.

Still a factor you have to take into consideration. Especially If you are serious about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to the experts, its a strong contributor.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:24:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not aware that anyone's asking those poor, energy-less people, who I'm sure you would claim would be crapping in golden toilets if we'd all just let the market do its thing, to change their way of life. Why would we? They're not emitting most of the carbon.

I think that the best solution for them and for us is to give them independence by making them be able to provide for their own people with balanced trade agreements and no humanitarian aid.

The highest reliable estimate I could find of carbon cap GDP effect versus BAU by 2030 was 2.15%. ... In fact, we're looking at a total of $20 trillion (in 2002 dollars) in damages by 2100, and $75 trillion by 2200, if we do nothing. By acting now, we more than halve both of those figures.

But, how much Carbon will this 2.15% of GDP eliminate? Kyoto was only gong to eliminate like 2% of CO2 by 2100 according to the graphs I looked at. If we are only going to do it halfway, then I'll take monster tidal waves and climate refugees over monster tidal waves and climate refugees + more regulations.

I seriously doubt we're looking at the figures that you say. Cities who have put in these measures haven't seen close to those measures. The sea level rise has remained constant through the century as well and the rate has barely changed, so it's doubtful that your numbers are reliable if you consider the past accounts of disaster that were supposed to occur ... by 2010 if you watch Al Gore's silliness.

Here's a quote from AGW alarmist Carl Wunsch
""It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be"
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:22:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:26:29 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:32:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?

the alternatives right now are quite expensive, and they will become more expensive the greater the demand there is for them (basic supply and demand). Hybrid cars and electric cars are ridiculously expensive.

Investment in green technology and carbon pricing will result in cheaper manufacturing costs, hence more supply. Household energy prices in general will be more than cut in half by 2050.

Prices can only go so low. The supply of silicon can only be so much. There are inherent manufacturing costs that can't be lowered due to thermodynamic limitations.

And only so much information can be squeezed into atomic structures. By your logic, we should stop making computers.


Plus, actually one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gases are cows, not cars. This would include milk and cheese products? Do you believe everyone should go for a vegan diet, which is incredibly unhealthy If not done properly?

There is 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane.

Still a factor you have to take into consideration. Especially If you are serious about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to the experts, its a strong contributor.

The potency of cow farts does not offset the quantity of carbon in the air.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:25:53 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:22:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:26:29 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:32:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?

the alternatives right now are quite expensive, and they will become more expensive the greater the demand there is for them (basic supply and demand). Hybrid cars and electric cars are ridiculously expensive.

Investment in green technology and carbon pricing will result in cheaper manufacturing costs, hence more supply. Household energy prices in general will be more than cut in half by 2050.

Prices can only go so low. The supply of silicon can only be so much. There are inherent manufacturing costs that can't be lowered due to thermodynamic limitations.

And only so much information can be squeezed into atomic structures. By your logic, we should stop making computers.

What? No my logic states that it might not be possible to make this technology "cheap", or at least cheap enough to be a good substitute for carbon-emitting technology without causing economic catastrophocy. There are physical constrains that are inherent. That's what I'm stating.



Plus, actually one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gases are cows, not cars. This would include milk and cheese products? Do you believe everyone should go for a vegan diet, which is incredibly unhealthy If not done properly?

There is 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane.

Still a factor you have to take into consideration. Especially If you are serious about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to the experts, its a strong contributor.

The potency of cow farts does not offset the quantity of carbon in the air.

I didn't say it did. I'm stating that If you are serious about the issue on stopping global warming, then you'd have to target carbon emissions AND methane emissions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:33:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Really? Only 12 posts, and you're pulling a Godwin?

The survey was of 3,146 earth scientists, more than 90% of whom had a PhD. Even if you allow active researchers who don't know more than the basics about climate, or climatologists who have sat on their asses for several decades rather than doing any actual studies, the consensus stands at about 90%. That makes your position a fringe.

But, if you read the paper, over 10,000 emails were sent, of which about 3000 were responded to with the answers to the survey.

We don't know what the real "consensus" is. And, we don't even know what is being taled about with "consensus." The terms of the poll were far too vague. Combine that with a dose of participation bias, and you have yourself a poll that's geared to favor the AGW nuts.

Hell, they even used a gallop poll, one of the most notoriously liberal polls there is, as their "general public" figure.

At least they were smart enough to know their audience.

And you evidently haven't heard the lists of "scientists" that AGW deniers and young earth creationists constantly publish today.

There are many, many papers published against the premise of significant human-induced climate change, as well as many scientists against it. They just don't get published in newsweek, MSNBC, and Nature too often.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:45:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:24:56 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
I'm not aware that anyone's asking those poor, energy-less people, who I'm sure you would claim would be crapping in golden toilets if we'd all just let the market do its thing, to change their way of life. Why would we? They're not emitting most of the carbon.

I think that the best solution for them and for us is to give them independence by making them be able to provide for their own people with balanced trade agreements and no humanitarian aid.

Like I said: crapping on golden toilets, if only the Almighty Market could do its work.

The highest reliable estimate I could find of carbon cap GDP effect versus BAU by 2030 was 2.15%. ... In fact, we're looking at a total of $20 trillion (in 2002 dollars) in damages by 2100, and $75 trillion by 2200, if we do nothing. By acting now, we more than halve both of those figures.

But, how much Carbon will this 2.15% of GDP eliminate? Kyoto was only gong to eliminate like 2% of CO2 by 2100 according to the graphs I looked at. If we are only going to do it halfway, then I'll take monster tidal waves and climate refugees over monster tidal waves and climate refugees + more regulations.

Well at least you're honest. The world can go to hell as long as you get to keep stomping on the skulls of the disadvantaged.

The 2.15% estimate -- which, by the way, was the high end of a range that started at 0.44% -- was of the Lieberman-Warner proposal, which by 2050 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 70% below 2005 levels. There's also Waxman-Markey, which would reduce GHG emissions to 83% below 2005 levels for no more than a 0.9% GDP loss. And again, this is versus a scenario where we take NO economic damage from climate loss.

I seriously doubt we're looking at the figures that you say. Cities who have put in these measures haven't seen close to those measures. The sea level rise has remained constant through the century as well and the rate has barely changed, so it's doubtful that your numbers are reliable if you consider the past accounts of disaster that were supposed to occur ... by 2010 if you watch Al Gore's silliness.

Sea levels rose 25 mm between 2000 and 2009.

Here's a quote from AGW alarmist Carl Wunsch
""It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be"

Please post the sentences immediately preceding and following that sentence in the original paper.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:47:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:33:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Really? Only 12 posts, and you're pulling a Godwin?

The survey was of 3,146 earth scientists, more than 90% of whom had a PhD. Even if you allow active researchers who don't know more than the basics about climate, or climatologists who have sat on their asses for several decades rather than doing any actual studies, the consensus stands at about 90%. That makes your position a fringe.

But, if you read the paper, over 10,000 emails were sent, of which about 3000 were responded to with the answers to the survey.

We don't know what the real "consensus" is. And, we don't even know what is being taled about with "consensus." The terms of the poll were far too vague. Combine that with a dose of participation bias, and you have yourself a poll that's geared to favor the AGW nuts.

Hell, they even used a gallop poll, one of the most notoriously liberal polls there is, as their "general public" figure.

At least they were smart enough to know their audience.

A 30% response rate is standard for web-based surveys. The terms of the poll were quite clear, and there's no evidence of participation bias.

And you evidently haven't heard the lists of "scientists" that AGW deniers and young earth creationists constantly publish today.

There are many, many papers published against the premise of significant human-induced climate change, as well as many scientists against it. They just don't get published in newsweek, MSNBC, and Nature too often.

For every climatologist who rejects AGW you can post, I'll post one named Steve.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:52:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:31:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:25:53 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:22:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 2:26:29 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:32:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:27:51 PM, WriterDave wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:19:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 1:16:28 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Your primary objection seems to be "we have one shot to get it right." Is something terrible going to happen if we take steps to dramatically curtail greenhouse emissions?

Yes, our entire economy is based on carbon-emission energy. Say goodbye to carbon-based energy and you lose a lot of luxuries of life, like food for one.

Assuming there's nothing to replace it, yes?

the alternatives right now are quite expensive, and they will become more expensive the greater the demand there is for them (basic supply and demand). Hybrid cars and electric cars are ridiculously expensive.

Investment in green technology and carbon pricing will result in cheaper manufacturing costs, hence more supply. Household energy prices in general will be more than cut in half by 2050.

Prices can only go so low. The supply of silicon can only be so much. There are inherent manufacturing costs that can't be lowered due to thermodynamic limitations.

And only so much information can be squeezed into atomic structures. By your logic, we should stop making computers.

What? No my logic states that it might not be possible to make this technology "cheap", or at least cheap enough to be a good substitute for carbon-emitting technology without causing economic catastrophocy. There are physical constrains that are inherent. That's what I'm stating.

Your logic also states that Moore's Law might stop applying in a few years, and thus it might not be possible to make computers much better than the ones we have today, so we should stop trying because we're just throwing our money away. I mean really, who needs computers?



Plus, actually one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gases are cows, not cars. This would include milk and cheese products? Do you believe everyone should go for a vegan diet, which is incredibly unhealthy If not done properly?

There is 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane.

Still a factor you have to take into consideration. Especially If you are serious about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

According to the experts, its a strong contributor.

The potency of cow farts does not offset the quantity of carbon in the air.

I didn't say it did. I'm stating that If you are serious about the issue on stopping global warming, then you'd have to target carbon emissions AND methane emissions.

I live in Minnesota and often drive on the open highway, so if you can find a way to eliminate cow farts, I'd like that very much indeed. Meanwhile, I'm going to focus on what's doing most of the work in AGW.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:55:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For every climatologist who rejects AGW you can post, I'll post one named Steve.

Let me clarify: for every climatologist who rejects AGW you can post, I'll post a climatologist who accepts AGW named Steve.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 8:10:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Like I said: crapping on golden toilets, if only the Almighty Market could do its work.

If we stopped encouraging them to sign these bogus climate treaties, it could do its work.

Well at least you're honest. The world can go to hell as long as you get to keep stomping on the skulls of the disadvantaged.

The 2.15% estimate -- which, by the way, was the high end of a range that started at 0.44% -- was of the Lieberman-Warner proposal, which by 2050 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 70% below 2005 levels. There's also Waxman-Markey, which would reduce GHG emissions to 83% below 2005 levels for no more than a 0.9% GDP loss. And again, this is versus a scenario where we take NO economic damage from climate loss.

I'm assuming that this is just a United States proposal, and not something for the world.

But, to be fair, I'll look at it and see exactly what's in it since I haven't read the energy proposal detail

But, even for the US, I just don't buy it. If you look at the difference in energy cost between states like California (about $0.14/KWh) to a state like Tennessee (about $0.075/KWh), you see the difference between green states and not-so-green states.

I seriously doubt we're looking at the figures that you say. Cities who have put in these measures haven't seen close to those measures. The sea level rise has remained constant through the century as well and the rate has barely changed, so it's doubtful that your numbers are reliable if you consider the past accounts of disaster that were supposed to occur ... by 2010 if you watch Al Gore's silliness.

Sea levels rose 25 mm between 2000 and 2009.

The average sea level rise per year is about 3mm/yr. That's not surprising at all. Sea levels have been rising since we have first measured them, and proxy records show that they were rising since the Holocene interglacial began. We have almost nothing to do with that.

Please post the sentences immediately preceding and following that sentence in the original paper.

This is a quote from Richard Lindzen in his 2009 presentation at MIT. Ask him.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 8:16:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:52:56 PM, WriterDave wrote:

Your logic also states that Moore's Law might stop applying in a few years, and thus it might not be possible to make computers much better than the ones we have today, so we should stop trying because we're just throwing our money away. I mean really, who needs computers?


Moore's law will stop working at some point. Computers are currently the cheapest good for storing data, transfering data, and utilizing data. The same is not said for alternative energy. Your also comparing apples to oranges.

I live in Minnesota and often drive on the open highway, so if you can find a way to eliminate cow farts, I'd like that very much indeed. Meanwhile, I'm going to focus on what's doing most of the work in AGW.

I said, the vegan option. I already stated that methane gas is a major contributor, so you can't ignore methane gas, and focus soley on carbon dioxide.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 8:26:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A 30% response rate is standard for web-based surveys. The terms of the poll were quite clear, and there's no evidence of participation bias.

Yeah, the paper used that excuse. Now, if you're using something with an extreme probability of participation bias, and you are basing it on the Internet. Isn't there something .. wrong with that method? I don't care what is "standard" for an Internet poll. What I DO care about is if we are really getting any truth to this.

Evidence for participation bias is quite clear. Here you have 10,000 scientists, 30% of which took the survey. So,he survey no longer becomes "what percentages of Earth Scientists believe the basics of AGW" but rather "what percentage of those willing to participate on this believe in AGW?"

Let me give you an example of participation bias that I gave to my good friend in the other threads:

Let's say I invite 100 people to a party. We all have a good time, get drunk, and it's time to go. Before it's time to go, I hand all 100 (10000 earth scientists) a piece of paper asking the question "Do you consider yourself a friend of Justus?" (Do you agree with the basics of AGW) Now, of the 100 people, 70 of those throw the piece of paper in the trash (or, delete the email in the case of an Earth Scientists). Let's say 29 people at this party say "Yes" to the poll.

Does that mean 97% of invitees were my friends? Of course not. But, there's no evidence to suggest otherwise!

It's the problem with web surveys and polls in general. You can never get a very good sample no matter what method you try unless you are very very specific with your sample.

For every climatologist who rejects AGW you can post, I'll post one named Steve.

Argumentum ad populum once more.

Most climatologists don't even form an army like you guys portray they do. The consensus is only on the very basics, that Global Warming is real, and we've caused a little bit of the observed changes. There's little agreement to how much we have caused, how much can be caused, and how sensitive the climate is in general.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 9:23:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 8:26:35 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
A 30% response rate is standard for web-based surveys. The terms of the poll were quite clear, and there's no evidence of participation bias.

Yeah, the paper used that excuse. Now, if you're using something with an extreme probability of participation bias, and you are basing it on the Internet. Isn't there something .. wrong with that method? I don't care what is "standard" for an Internet poll. What I DO care about is if we are really getting any truth to this.

Evidence for participation bias is quite clear. Here you have 10,000 scientists, 30% of which took the survey. So,he survey no longer becomes "what percentages of Earth Scientists believe the basics of AGW" but rather "what percentage of those willing to participate on this believe in AGW?"

Let me give you an example of participation bias that I gave to my good friend in the other threads:

Let's say I invite 100 people to a party. We all have a good time, get drunk, and it's time to go. Before it's time to go, I hand all 100 (10000 earth scientists) a piece of paper asking the question "Do you consider yourself a friend of Justus?" (Do you agree with the basics of AGW) Now, of the 100 people, 70 of those throw the piece of paper in the trash (or, delete the email in the case of an Earth Scientists). Let's say 29 people at this party say "Yes" to the poll.

Does that mean 97% of invitees were my friends? Of course not. But, there's no evidence to suggest otherwise!

It's the problem with web surveys and polls in general. You can never get a very good sample no matter what method you try unless you are very very specific with your sample.

The surveyors didn't invite anyone to a party. They didn't even know the scientists involved -- they pulled their names from a database. Nor did they identify themselves, or say what side they were on in the "debate," when inviting the scientists to participate in the survey.

For every climatologist who rejects AGW you can post, I'll post one named Steve.

Argumentum ad populum once more.

Most climatologists don't even form an army like you guys portray they do. The consensus is only on the very basics, that Global Warming is real, and we've caused a little bit of the observed changes. There's little agreement to how much we have caused, how much can be caused, and how sensitive the climate is in general.

The consensus is that humans contribute significantly, and it's not argument from popularity, it's argument from authority, which when appealing to a scientific consensus is quite legitimate.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 9:31:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 8:10:36 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Like I said: crapping on golden toilets, if only the Almighty Market could do its work.

If we stopped encouraging them to sign these bogus climate treaties, it could do its work.

Utopianism.

Well at least you're honest. The world can go to hell as long as you get to keep stomping on the skulls of the disadvantaged.

The 2.15% estimate -- which, by the way, was the high end of a range that started at 0.44% -- was of the Lieberman-Warner proposal, which by 2050 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 70% below 2005 levels. There's also Waxman-Markey, which would reduce GHG emissions to 83% below 2005 levels for no more than a 0.9% GDP loss. And again, this is versus a scenario where we take NO economic damage from climate loss.

I'm assuming that this is just a United States proposal, and not something for the world.

But, to be fair, I'll look at it and see exactly what's in it since I haven't read the energy proposal detail

But, even for the US, I just don't buy it. If you look at the difference in energy cost between states like California (about $0.14/KWh) to a state like Tennessee (about $0.075/KWh), you see the difference between green states and not-so-green states.

Which is why we need to invest more heavily in green technology, to bring those prices down and encourage other states to use renewable energy. Otherwise, when the oil runs dry, Tennessee's energy cost is basically going to be infinity/KWh.

I seriously doubt we're looking at the figures that you say. Cities who have put in these measures haven't seen close to those measures. The sea level rise has remained constant through the century as well and the rate has barely changed, so it's doubtful that your numbers are reliable if you consider the past accounts of disaster that were supposed to occur ... by 2010 if you watch Al Gore's silliness.

Sea levels rose 25 mm between 2000 and 2009.

The average sea level rise per year is about 3mm/yr. That's not surprising at all. Sea levels have been rising since we have first measured them, and proxy records show that they were rising since the Holocene interglacial began. We have almost nothing to do with that.

At the same rate as in the last few decades?

Please post the sentences immediately preceding and following that sentence in the original paper.

This is a quote from Richard Lindzen in his 2009 presentation at MIT. Ask him.

I'll take that to mean it's a fake quote.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 9:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 8:16:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/1/2012 7:52:56 PM, WriterDave wrote:

Your logic also states that Moore's Law might stop applying in a few years, and thus it might not be possible to make computers much better than the ones we have today, so we should stop trying because we're just throwing our money away. I mean really, who needs computers?


Moore's law will stop working at some point. Computers are currently the cheapest good for storing data, transfering data, and utilizing data. The same is not said for alternative energy. Your also comparing apples to oranges.

Why bother to make computers better? Can't we just etch things in stone?


I live in Minnesota and often drive on the open highway, so if you can find a way to eliminate cow farts, I'd like that very much indeed. Meanwhile, I'm going to focus on what's doing most of the work in AGW.

I said, the vegan option. I already stated that methane gas is a major contributor, so you can't ignore methane gas, and focus soley on carbon dioxide.

Will seven billion vegans eliminate cow farts? And yes, we are focusing on methane as it's produced by industry, to the extent that (a) we can, and (b) the problem merits.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 9:51:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The surveyors didn't invite anyone to a party. They didn't even know the scientists involved -- they pulled their names from a database. Nor did they identify themselves, or say what side they were on in the "debate," when inviting the scientists to participate in the survey.

You're not translating the analogy here. What I mentioned is one example of participation bias that could occur with an easy, obvious example. But is there a reason why most scientists threw away those emails or didn't respond to the requests? Perhaps participation in the poll was far more important as a whole to those who vote "yes" than those who vote "no" just like a friend's loyalty to participate in a poll at a party and identify themselves with you.

But, it could also be more innocent. Perhaps the data could simply mean that people who like to participate in polls also agree with the AGW hypotheses, which wouldbe a coincidental correlation.

But, what I'm saying here is that polls like this are unreliable at getting real results. It's the whole Michael Mann bristlecone pine problem. The source was likely using a data source that they knew would win them the argument rather than provide any relevant data.

As far as the selection process itself, now you're getting into the realm of uncertainty where you make assumptions. They did not say specifically how these scientists were selected that I recall. If I remember the paper right, it simply said the number of scientists emailed without any mention of what method they used to pull their names and which of those names were emailed. I'm not calling bias on this, simply stating that you should not assume the selection process.

If they did mention a specific method of selection that made it randomized and uniform, then I apologize and will gladly be corrected.

The consensus is that humans contribute significantly, and it's not argument from popularity, it's argument from authority, which when appealing to a scientific consensus is quite legitimate.

Right.

Then, there's the time frame. Significantly since when? Over the last 100 years? Over the last 50? Over the last 25? Some put the dividing line at the Sun's irradiation peak in the 1950s, while some say we've contributed since the dirty industry days of England. I've read some things that have said our influence has only been significant the past 25 years.

Also, there are different definitions of "significant". What are we talking about? Is it defined as 0.2C, 0.4C, or the full 0.6C? Does it have to do with accelerated warming that we saw in the 80s-90s that stopped in 1998, or just this century in general with the individual sinusoidal patterns left to nature?

If you look at the scientific literature, you'll see scientists give some of these numbers, but no scientist will give you the same numbers, definitions, or predictions for every aspect of the AGW hypothesis.

So, if you want to ask ridiculously general questions, then I'll admit that 80% of people agree with the general idea of AGW, but the devil is in the details of this debate, and the reason why governments and scientists alike are still fighting is because of inconsistent data and lack of agreed details.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 10:02:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Which is why we need to invest more heavily in green technology, to bring those prices down and encourage other states to use renewable energy. Otherwise, when the oil runs dry, Tennessee's energy cost is basically going to be infinity/KWh.

We have enough oil to last many more years, and with better technology, we can exploit shale much more effectively. There are still tons of tar/oil sands. There are lots of ways.

Now, saying this, keep in mind that I'm not against renewable energy, but the problem isn't such that we have to twist arms to get people to use it. It will gradually become more and more expensive at a steady enough rate where it will be economical to use renewables. Right now, money should only be spent on research, rather than taxing Carbon or other such crap.

I am a believer that, within my lifetime, solar will be the dominant form of energy in the world. That, I do welcome, but it's not because of environmental BS. It's because I truly think it's the future. But, we don't need it right away or even in 15 years for that matter.

At the same rate as in the last few decades?

Well, from the graphs and stuff I've read in general, there was an acceleration in the 1920s that was pretty sudden, but it's been constant within the noise within that time. Considering that sea level is something that continues to rise with and without humans, it's safe to say we're not going o change much with a 0.2-0.5mm change in sea level per year, even assuming we have much to do with it.

I'll take that to mean it's a fake quote.

Read his presentation for yourself. He has a lot more than that quote. Sady, I can't verify the authenticity of that, but I don't doubt Lindzen's sincerity on it since it's basically what any scientist says about any model used to predict anything.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman