Oh, everything's just dandy ...
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Sunday, June 17, 2007 17:12
VIEWED: 13760
PAGE 8 of 15
Quote:Now this is interesting. I read 'Toonhall - I mean Townhall - and they recently sent me an email telling me I just had to get the book 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)'. Which I did forthwith and read, 'cause I was wondering what passes for thought among the right-wing-nuts. I regret to report it was a complete and unredeemed waste of time and money. But anyway, the very first chapter made made a big deal about how it wasn't science, it was a religion.
Geezer: "I'm afraid that the missionary zeal to spread the word about global warming sometimes leads to the worst excesses of missionaries, wherein they blame every bad thing on the devil and one's lack of faith."
Finn:
"What we deny, I think, is the apocalyptic visions of religious fanaticism. If you want to convince people that the environment is worth improving, then stop with the end-of-the-world crap, because that’s not science – it’s religion."
Please tell me you didn't read that dreck and spit it back at me.
-----------------------
Now, on to an actual discussion. Boys, when you get me better science that tells me global warming is all-natural and minimal I'll accept it. That's because I follow the data. That's called science. And the best science available at the moment says global warming is nearly all man-made and will result in disruption of our lives and the live of generations to come. It's you who refuse to follow the data where it leads, into where it conflicts with your personal dogmas. That's called religion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...when you get me better science that tells me global warming is all-natural and minimal I'll accept it.
Why should I do that? I said:
-Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
-Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
-Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
Hardly 'all-natural and minimal'.
Quote:
And the best science available at the moment says global warming is nearly all man-made and will result in disruption of our lives and the lives of generations to come.
Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives. People have had to move, or adapt, due to climate change since pre-history. What's different this time is that we know it's coming, in some form, and we think we can mitigate it. Whether mitigation can be made to work remains to be seen. I'd like to see more work on adaptation, in case, say, China and India won't go along with reducing greenhouse gasses.
Quote:
It's you who refuse to follow the data where it leads...
I follow the data where it leads. When it gets ambiguious, I stop and look for more data.
What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome, and then extrapolate from that the most dire conclusions, and then state them as absolute fact. Because that's not science. I refer you to the series of BBC articles Khyron and I mention above.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One by one:
C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.
C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.
C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.
C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?
C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
One by one:
C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.
C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.
C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.
C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?
C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.
C?
I call bull shit. Global warming and cooling is natural...........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer: In another thread on the same topic you challenged others to come up with action items and then promptly dismissed them as being ineffective. For example, requiring higher fuel efficiency in cars or using wind energy. I expect that if someone were to propose a more drastic/ one-size-fits-all solution, such as a steep "carbon tax", you'd say it was too costly! You seem to think that this is a problem for which nothing should be done.
The possibilities in current technology are incremental and depend on many approaches being used: higher fuel efficiency AND more efficent power transmission AND implementation of solar/ wind power AND energy conservation. None of these approaches are painfully expensive, impossible, or lead to a lower standard of living. So why would you be so resistant to all changes that would lead to improvement?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, just like cancer, aflatoxin and uranium.
I call bull shit. Global warming and cooling is natural...........
And we do something about them, don't we?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer - does Kaneman answer for you?
I was wondering if you had a response:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
One by one:
C: Global warming seems pretty much established through observation.
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.
C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.
C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.
C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?
C: What I don't do is pick from the pile of contradictory data the finding which has the worst outcome.
R: Neither do it. You apparently haven't been closely following the research. Science follows the best available data, as do I.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Head-in-sand posture seems to be the favored stance. But at leaast they're already in position for kissing their #sses goodbye. 
Paying attention to facts? Not so much.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Have you got back-up for these numbers?
Originally posted by rue:
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.
But it made me think a bit. A lot of methane is created by cattle and I saw somewhere that this has a larger effect on GW than the use of fossil fuels. While I can understand (and welcome) the current emphasis on renewable energy sources to cut back CO2 emissions, wouldn't a more effective way of lowering GHG emissions be to promote vegetarianism, or at least get people to cut back on meat?
My guess is it would be futile to even try it, because that would involve people making significant lifestyle changes. Ignoring the blatant sensationalism and apocalyptic predictions designed to make headlines (which sicken me and are the reasons why I side with Geezer and Finn in these threads), it seems like too much of this debate is centred on "Oh, we humans are terrible, let's bitch about the government/industry not doing enough, and about those people who don't think we're all going to die because of this", and not on "What can we as individuals do to help reduce this, and how much would it cost us personally?". The only times I saw this happen was when the media showcases some whacked out treehuggers whose attempted carbon-neutral lifestyle makes people go "THAT'S what I need to live like to be good to the environment!? No way, not worth it!".
Bill Maher asked a good question recently. If global warming could be solved by people simply not using their remote control anymore, would they stop using them?
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
C: Human contributions through agriculture and technology seem pretty well established, although how much is still in question.
R: The estimates vary between 95 and 97%.
As noted before, cites would help. For example, is this a 95 to 97% chance that human contributions affect climate change, or is it that 95 to 97% of climate change is due to human contributions?
Quote:
C: Predictions of future rates of global warming seem to vary widely.
R: The estimates vary between 4C and 10C. By any measure, that's a lot warmer.
IPCC 2007 shows a 2.4C - 6.4C range of increase between the 20 year average ending 1999 and the ten year average ending 2099, assuming their worst case scenario. Sea level increases for the same period and scenario would be 0.26 - 0.59 meters. Best case is 1.1C - 2.9C and 0.18M - 0.38M.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Quote:
C: Changes in climate have always disrupted people's lives.
R: But when these changes are self-induced they are completely avoidable.
C: we think we can mitigate it
R: Scientists are saying we (humans) can eliminate the problem using currently available technology. Why live with a problem you can fix ?
Cool. No need for panicky Chicken Little rushing about, then.
Actually, I am not too confident that the world is going to get on board that easily, especially the developing countries where fossil fuels are the only choice for energy, and agriculture has to expand. That's why I'm more interested in adaptation than mitigation. Unfortunately, stuff like rebuilding parts of New Orleans that are on the flood plain doesn't make it look like adaptation is gonna be easy to sell.
Quote:
Science follows the best available data, as do I.
Links, please.
To start with, some scientific evidence that the recent fires in Southern California are the direct result of climate change, and not just the same fires that they've been having around LA since folks have been there. Not conjecture, not jumping from Point A to Point D without logical middle steps.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME