|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2007 : 22:07:01 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, before going on it's worth asking: if some of us walked you through (in a non-hostile manner) the main issues, |
That has already been done, more than once, for bill on this subject.
He simply doesn't care what the evidence is, he'd much rather spend time insulting Al Gore.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 03:47:58 [Permalink]
|
Are changes in global tempertures cyclic? Yes, certainly, although there seems to little regularity in the cycles. Warming/cooling happens according to existing conditions; the sun's output, volcanic activity, & so forth. However, in the last couple of centuries, atmospheric conditions have been influenced by ourselves in the forms of the Industrial Revolution, deforestation, and agricultural practices -- Bill, do you deny that the makeup of our atmosphere today is rather different from that of, say, the 12th century?
Now, there is nothing that we can do about the sun or volcanos, or other natural occurences, but there is a lot that can be done to clean up our mess. Politics being what they are, very little be done but the opportunity exists, and Al Gore's income has nothing to do with any of it.
I really don't care how much money Gore or anyone else is earning. All I am concerned about is the science (or the lack of it from the deniers) and this blather about people cashing in is no more than a rather clumsy red herring, and we've been down that road before, me & thee. Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned. |
It ain't happenin', my friend. Show us the science.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 08:38:26 [Permalink]
|
“Suppose that climate change is not real and we do adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose they are wrong. Suppose they are wrong, and climate change is real, and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans? It's real. We've got to address it. We can do it with technology, with cap-and- trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. And I'm confident that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.”
John McCaine, talking sense at the most recent Republican debate.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 08:44:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
“Suppose that climate change is not real and we do adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose they are wrong. Suppose they are wrong, and climate change is real, and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans? It's real. We've got to address it. We can do it with technology, with cap-and- trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. And I'm confident that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.”
John McCaine, talking sense at the most recent Republican debate. |
I just brought this up in chat last night. I thought it was the smartest thing I'd head about the debate in a long time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 08:56:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok sure. Personally my biggest bewilderment is that this crowd seems to have totally ruled out any chance at all that the overall earth's average temperature rising a ½ of a degree over 50 or 100 years, or whatever the number is, is not at all a natural occurrence and part of the grand scheme of the many cycles the earth has went through in her storied past. |
Bill, nobody denies that there are natural and even naturally cyclic fluctuations in the Earth temperature and climate.
The science of anthropogenic global climate change says that no known mechanism (or set of mechanisms) for natural fluctuations satisfactorily explains the current warming.
It's not that natural changes have been ignored or summarily dismissed, it's that the warming caused by natural processes is less than the warming caused by man-made processes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 09:33:52 [Permalink]
|
Okay Bill. It seems to me that for you it all comes down to ideology. Any science that is at odds with your particular ideology must be flawed and be pushing an ideology of its own. That is why it seems perfectly reasonable for you to attack people like Gore as part of your argument against MGW. You are convinced that the consensus of climate scientists are a part of a global conspiracy to rob you of tax money and shift the status quo unnecessarily, (our way of doing things) for their own gain. The researcher, who is freezing his ass off in some remote part of the artic, taking core samples of ice, is in it for the money, as though he just couldn't find a more comfortable way to reach his real life goal of becoming rich.
And that is a mind bogglingly cynical view of how scientists do science. And a mighty convenient and highly selective view as well. The science that doesn't challenge your ideology is good science. The science that does is a conspiracy to rob you of your cherished beliefs, and, of course, your money.
And that is pretty much that.
Edited. Sometimes I hate my spell checker....
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 10:08:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Are changes in global tempertures cyclic? Yes, certainly, although there seems to little regularity in the cycles. Warming/cooling happens according to existing conditions; the sun's output, volcanic activity, & so forth. However, in the last couple of centuries, atmospheric conditions have been influenced by ourselves in the forms of the Industrial Revolution, deforestation, and agricultural practices -- Bill, do you deny that the makeup of our atmosphere today is rather different from that of, say, the 12th century?
|
Two cents or more...
Geologists regard the Earth to be in the midst of a long-running (several million years at least) Ice Age. This Ice Age consists of long periods of glaciation, where the Northern Hemisphere is covered by sheets of ice for approximately 100k years and short comparatively warm interglacial periods of around 12k years. Current understanding is that these regular cycles are caused by three periodic fluctuations in the Earth's orbit and spin. When they coincide properly they cause the warming in interglacial periods.
We are currently nearing the tail end of the Holocene epoch, the most recent interglacial period. It started about 9600 BC or about 11,550 years ago, give or take. There is strong evidence the Earth should be in a long slow cooling trend right now and that it was actually interrupted, slightly, about 5k years ago by the agricultural revolution. Land clearing, rice farming and animal herding increased the CO and CH4 in the atmosphere to cause a slight bit of warming but not enough to head off the overall cooling trend. The industrial revolution, on the other hand, has reversed the trend dramatically.
IMHO a little warming isn't bad - a full blown glacial period is not in anyone's interest. Careful tinkering to head off a glacial period would be the discipline of climate engineering. What we have now is radical, unguided, uncontrolled warming the effects of which will be fast and dramatic climate change.
All that means is the status quo is going to be kicked over. The world isn't going to end, life will not go extinct, but human civilization will face a huge challenge coping. People are going to suffer. And that's why many think it's important to get this bull by the horns before it smashes up the china shop.
More on the natural orbital variations:
The Milankovitch cycles are a set of cyclic variations in characteristics of the Earth's orbit around the sun. Each cycle has a different length, so at some times their effects reinforce each other and at other times they (partially) cancel each other.
It is very unlikely that the Milankovitch cycles can start or end an ice age (series of glacial periods):
Even when their effects reinforce each other they are not strong enough.
The "peaks" (effects reinforce each other) and "troughs" (effects cancel each other) are much more regular and much more frequent than the observed ice ages.
In contrast, there is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. The present ice ages are the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume.
Within this period, the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milanković orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted. The combined effects of the changing distance to the Sun, the precession of the Earth's axis, and the changing tilt of the Earth's axis redistribute the sunlight received by the Earth. Of particular importance are changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, which affect the intensity of seasons.
For example, the amount of solar influx in July at 65 degrees north latitude varies by as much as 25% (from 400 W/m² to 500 W/m², see graph at [2]). It is widely believed that ice sheets advance when summers become too cool to melt all of the accumulated snowfall from the previous winter. Some workers believe that the strength of the orbital forcing is too small to trigger glaciations, but feedback mechanisms like CO2 may explain this mismatch. |
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2007 : 12:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the excellent elaborarion, 'loobi. I hope it is as appreciated by certain others as it is by me.
On a related note, Gore, as he pocketed his well-derserved Nobel, has handed some pretty good advice to the Bali Confrence: The United Nations has been meeting this week in Bali to negotiate steps industrialized nations will take to reduce emissions and combat global warming. Predictably, the Bush administration's delegation is doing what it always does — block progress, stall for time, and undermine the process. It's reached the point that our European allies are prepared to boycott U.S.-led climate talks next month unless the Bush administration begins to compromise in good faith.
Today, Al Gore was on hand, and didn't hesitate to take his country's irresponsible approach to task.
“My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali,” said Gore, who flew to Bali from Oslo, Norway, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping alert the world to the danger of climate change. […]
Gore urged delegates to reach agreement even without the backing of the United States, saying President Bush's successor, who will take office in January 2009, would likely be more supportive of binding cuts.
“Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now,” he said. “I must tell you candidly that I cannot promise that the person who is elected will have the position I expect they will have, but I can tell you I believe it is quite likely.” |
In brief, he reccommended that the conference tell the Bush Administration to fuck off, and to get on about their business. The US can join back in when it has an actual leader concerned with the welfare of all people running it's show.
Not too shabby, this idea.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 12:24:58 [Permalink]
|
| As long as the joke of carbon off-setting(credits) isnt addressed, any fix will be an illusion. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 13:26:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
As long as the joke of carbon off-setting(credits) isnt addressed, any fix will be an illusion.
|
Indeed, and as long as we have a Congress of wimps & clown college graduates, that will not be happening. Which is why I am not optomistic, merely hopeful.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 13:31:48 [Permalink]
|
IMHO it's already too late anyway. There is no way in hell the world can get it's collective energy infrastructure shit together to head this thing off. Maybe 15 years ago, but not today. What we do now is address the questions of how bad will we let it get and how long will it stay that way.
Wouldn't it be ironic to go through some catastrophic climate change over the next five decades and just when we're adjusting to these changes the effects of our de-carbonization start to take hold and the damn climate starts changing again! |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 13:49:23 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf |
| Bill, before going on it's worth asking: if some of us walked you through (in a non-hostile manner) the main issues, would you at least be willing to change your mind? If so, then let us know. If not, then it's not worth getting into. |
Sure, I will listen with a open mind and would enjoy a walk through in a non-hostile manner. Before you begin through I would like to clarify my position a little. As stated I am skeptical of the whole AGM theory. However, despite popular opinion, that does not mean that I do not care for the environment or that I think we don't have a responsibility to take care of it. I am all for new and cleaner technologies. I am for clean air. I am for clean water. I am all for going after companies that discard of waste in an illegal or irresponsibly manner. If fact, my guess is that we agree on much more of the environmental issues then we disagree.
Where we seem to disagree is on the cause of the observed warming. At this point I tend to lean towards natural occurrence for the rise and you lean towards man as the source of the change. I am all for laying out an energy plan for the future of the country, but I think it needs to be a carefully thought out plan that tends to both our needs. The need for manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture etc... and the need to pass down a clean and livable country to the next generation. Certainly there must be a middle ground somewhere between both of these needs. My concern is that with Al Gore and the UN leading the charge and frightening everyone with the prophetic message that we may only have 10 years or less that unnecessary and knee jerk reactions will be taken from this sensationalism. I can't think of really any good thing that the UN has accomplished or at least was not weighed down in corruption, yet everyone, or at least most, seem like they want the UN to take the lead on the fight to crush all AGW violators.
| You have flaws in your assumptions, and even though I've tried to address it several times, you insistence of making Al Gore and the UN as the main drivers of the science suggests you'd rather live in a fantasy world of windmills that you can happily fight with |
Well I despise the UN and believe the corruption in that organization goes beyond measure. And it sure seems to me that many are wanting the UN to take the lead in the AGW fight. Based on their track record I will have serious unrest anytime the UN takes the lead on anything.
As far as Al Gore well he just seems to be the poster boy of the AGW crowd. If you asked 100 random people on the street who the champion in the fight against AGW was I would not be surprised if 90% said Al Gore. I would also not be surprised if 90% of the same people could not name one person if they were asked to name anyone besides a celebrity who was in the fight for AGW. Well, and he is also such an easy target. I mean the dude preaches about personal sacrifice all while he looks as if he has put on 50-75lbs since leaving office, he goes hopscotching all over the globe in his personal jet, owning but not living in a 10,000 sq/ft home, and all while collecting $6K/minute for giving his sermons. He is the Benny Hinn of the AGW movement. To the unbelievers he is nothing more then a huckster raking in money hand over fist from his faithful flock all while displaying no personal sacrifice of his own. Other then his purchasing of carbon credit BS.
| As long as the joke of carbon off-setting(credits) isnt addressed, any fix will be an illusion. |
Just out of curiosity where does China, the #1 emitter of CO2 in the world and still growing, fall into this mix? Are they being represented at the conference? What about India?
And please Dude no links to Chinese wind farms unless you have a % on how much of their power useage comes from these farms. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 14:38:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Where we seem to disagree is on the cause of the observed warming. At this point I tend to lean towards natural occurrence for the rise and you lean towards man as the source of the change. |
CauseS. SourceS. The most important part of all of this discussion that you need to understand, Bill, is that there is no choice to make over which (nature or man) is causing warming. The choice is which is causing more warming. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 16:03:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Where we seem to disagree is on the cause of the observed warming. At this point I tend to lean towards natural occurrence for the rise and you lean towards man as the source of the change. |
CauseS. SourceS. The most important part of all of this discussion that you need to understand, Bill, is that there is no choice to make over which (nature or man) is causing warming. The choice is which is causing more warming.
|
Indeed, and it doesn't matter which anyway, because the only part of it that we can do anything about is the one that we are causing. And we'd better get snapping on it PDQ because the longer we fart around, the less we will accomplish and the greater the potential of the impact will be.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 17:20:28 [Permalink]
|
billscott said:
| And please Dude no links to Chinese wind farms unless you have a % on how much of their power usage comes from these farms. |
Still enjoy misrepresenting what other people say I see. Well, at least you don't limit yourself to just telling lies about Gore.
My links to previous wind energy resources DID include what % of power China derives from them, and the comparative growth rate of coal vs wind/solar/etc. China is the biggest emitter of CO2 now, and their planned growth of coal fired energy is (to put it mildly) extensive.
The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, is that we need to work closely with China and India (and several other developing nations) and provide them the resources to avoid our mistakes, while we clean up our own act.
Wind energy alone can provide all the power every human on the planet needs, evidence for this was provided for this claim a couple of years ago. The problem is one of infrastructure. We even have the capability of harnessing high altitude winds for power via tethered wind turbines.
When the US government offers wind energy companies the same subsidies they offer our oil companies (60-100 billion a year) then we'll see these technologies begin to replace coal.
To bad that coal/oil special interests own congress.
I am also an advocate of nuclear power. It is clean, efficient, and the newest reactors are incapable of melting down when the cooling systems are completely disabled. There is the problem of spent fuel, yes, but that is something we can contain for the moment and hopefully be able to recycle (or something) in the future. The US ban on new nuclear power plants is one of the most absurd things our government has ever done.
All that aside...
You are wrong on AGW. You have been demonstrated to be wrong multiple times on these boards. Yet you come back every couple of months with some half-baked claim about the falsity of AGW and then turn it into a rant about Al Gore.
How about this: You stop talking about Al Gore. He didn't do any of the science, he didn't write a check to any scientist, and his fees for speaking are an irrelevant amount of money compared to his personal wealth. He is merely the spokesman, and every time you start running off at the keyboard about how much you dislike him it damages your already non-existent credibility.
So don't pretend you are interested in a discussion about AGW, because your history here clearly demonstrates that you are not. Kil has you nailed, I think. The science that doesn't challenge your ideology is good science. The science that does is a conspiracy to rob you of your cherished beliefs, and, of course, your money.
|
... seems to sum your view on science up nicely.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An international team of MMGW deniers (scientists)
