Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: AZDuffman

You can't be serious?

Ice Age
Black Death
Smallpox and other disease
World Wars
Transition to farming from hunter-gathering
Threat of nuclear war

There are dozens of others. And somehow a 1-2C change in temperature which is easily within what the planet has had in the past is a bigger challenge?

Ice Age - last major ice age was 10,000 years ago; the emergence of civilization didn't occur until after this so not applicable

Black Death - killed off approximately 20% of the world's population mainly in crowded and unhygienic cities but it did not have a 100% mortality rate so in effect self-limiting

Smallpox and other disease - human civilization has suffered through numerous historic pandemics, all of which burn out after a first run through a population; civilization has been able to successfully and repeatedly survive and continue to grow even without the benefit of modern medicine which has since managed to eradicate many of them

World Wars - killed off approximately 5% of the world's population, not really a threat to human civilization overall

Transition to farming from hunter-gathering - only challenge I see here comes from the resulting emergence of infectious diseases so I think this is redundant

Threat of nuclear war - certainly a real threat to end civilization but as long as you have rational people in control of the majority of weapons the threat seems small (some estimate this to be 1% chance to cause extinction in the next 100 years); how close did we come in 1962? despite the hyperbole on both sides they did resolve it peacefully after negotiating a compromise so this is a demonstration that the threat can be dealt with successfully as we have been doing so for the last 70 years.

Dozens of other challenges, if they exist, I can't see having any significant threat to human civilization as we know it.

If we assume the world continues to rely on fossil fuels but can at least adopt some mixed alternative energy sources (A1B scenario) IPCC projections in global temperature rise by the year 2100 range from 1.7 to 4.4C with 2.8C being most likely:


Figure SPM.5. Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six SRES marker scenarios. The assessment of the best estimate and likely ranges in the grey bars includes the AOGCMs in the left part of the figure, as well as results from a hierarchy of independent models and observational constraints. {Figures 10.4 and 10.29}


These projections are far above anything the earth has seen in the last 10,000 years (NOAA):



The IPCC has listed some vulnerabilities that potentially could affect us:
Examples of potential key vulnerabilities.

Given the uncertainty in the projections (they could be greater as well as lesser), the uncertainty of system feedbacks, and the looming tipping point it seems to me that this is a great challenge that human beings are facing. Since the CO2 we are releasing today is going to stay in the atmosphere well beyond the year 2100 it will continue to be so.

Is it an surmountable challenge? No. We successfully dealt with the ozone layer crisis and who knows what technology will bring to deal with this new crisis. But we owe future generations to act responsible now rather than take a laissez faire attitude. Hope for the best but plan for the worst. Otherwise they will look back at us with disdain and ask, "How could someone ever be so selfish?"

Quote: paisiello

Otherwise they will look back at us with disdain and ask, "How could someone ever be so selfish?"

Actually I think it is far more likely they will ask, "why did they tax us into poverty on a problem that didn't exist."

But I am glad that society did so much to stop the global cooling the scientists warned us about in the early 1970s!

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually I think it is far more likely they will ask, "why did they tax us into poverty on a problem that didn't exist."

Which of the two options would be preferable? The prudent option or your reckless option? An analogy would be money spent on fire insurance for your house. If it doesn't burn down then it was a waste of money for something that didn't happen. Yet people buy these insurance policies all the time. Humans tend to be risk adverse (members of this forum excepted).

And no one is saying to tax you into poverty. Everyone's standard of living will probably need to lowered and maybe western countries more so then developing countries. The problem certainly exists based on the evidence we have today.

Quote: AZDuffman

But I am glad that society did so much to stop the global cooling the scientists warned us about in the early 1970s!

This was completely wrong information perpetrated by a couple of news magazines. Here is what the actual climate scientists were saying in the 1970's before the science was settled (Peterson 2008):


Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Quote: paisiello

Which of the two options would be preferable? The prudent option or your reckless option? An analogy would be money spent on fire insurance for your house. If it doesn't burn down then it was a waste of money for something that didn't happen. Yet people buy these insurance policies all the time. Humans tend to be risk adverse (members of this forum excepted).

I prefer the option where we do not make such a major decision based on projecting 50-100 years of reliable data onto a 4.5 billion year old planet. And your analogy is faulty. A better analogy would be, "your house may burn down so instead should you build a new one of concrete, which does not burn?"

I buy insurance because fire and other disasters are an actual risk I know the results of. Global Warming a theory full of holes and still no reason to believe warmer is not better.

Quote:

And no one is saying to tax you into poverty. Everyone's standard of living will probably need to lowered and maybe western countries more so then developing countries. The problem certainly exists based on the evidence we have today.

We keep hearing about needing hundreds of billions to trillions to solve the problem. Where do you think that money will come from? POTUS Obama said he wants my electric bill to "skyrocket" to solve the problem.

I'd believe the snake oil salesmen a little better if they did not fly private jets and live in mansions while they tell me that my standard of living has to change.

Quote: AZDuffman

Global Warming a theory full of holes and still no reason to believe warmer is not better.

We keep hearing about needing hundreds of billions to trillions to solve the problem. Where do you think that money will come from? POTUS Obama said he wants my electric bill to "skyrocket" to solve the problem.

I know better not to ask you for a credible source on any of this. I will at least attempt to provide you with one countering some of your claims:

Counting the Cost of Fixing the Future

The article references an economics paper which suggests that the tax would be about 2.8% of the world's GDP. Certainly a lot of money and certainly western countries would have to bear the majority of the burden. But this is hardly enough to tax anyone into poverty. If it means maybe we all have to take the bus or ride bicycles then, yes, for sure a much lower standard of living but not my definition poverty.

Quote: AZDuffman

I'd believe the snake oil salesmen a little better if they did not fly private jets and live in mansions while they tell me that my standard of living has to change.

You are skeptical of Al Gore. Good for you, I applaud this. Now go out there and find out what the evidence actually is and what the real climate scientists are saying; climate scientists who don't own private jets and who don't live in mansions.

Be warned though, you might have to drink some of the Kool-Aid.

Quote: paisiello

I know better not to ask you for a credible source on any of this.


You are skeptical of Al Gore. Good for you, I applaud this. Now go out there and find out what the evidence actually is and what the real climate scientists are saying; climate scientists who don't own private jets and who don't live in mansions.

Be warned though, you might have to drink some of the Kool-Aid.

My reasons for skepticism are long and varied and already posted on this site. You can check my history but they boil down to:

1. We do not have a long enough data set
2. We cannot separate the normal warming cycle (if any) from what is man-made
3. We have no reason to suspect warmer is not the same or better

I have heard the arguments for 25 years now, I do not need to hear any more as they are all the same since then.

AZD, is there some amount of data which would change your mind on any of those points?

Quote: AZDuffman

My reasons for skepticism are long and varied and already posted on this site. You can check my history but they boil down to:

1. We do not have a long enough data set
2. We cannot separate the normal warming cycle (if any) from what is man-made
3. We have no reason to suspect warmer is not the same or better

I have heard the arguments for 25 years now, I do not need to hear any more as they are all the same since then.

And your history never ever provides a credible source for any of the claims you have made. I have previously attempted to provide credible sources to counter all three of the above claims. You are just completely wrong on the issue. If I am the one that is wrong than show me the credible evidence that will convince me of that.

Take your time. I'll wait for you.

Quote: endermike

AZD, is there some amount of data which would change your mind on any of those points?

Only if the flux capacitor gets perfected and you can go back 2,000 years and show them how to keep reliable temperature records with actual thermometers. Then maybe we can talk.

Quote: paisiello

And your history never ever provides a credible source for any of the claims you have made. I have previously attempted to provide credible sources to counter all three of the above claims. You are just completely wrong on the issue. If I am the one that is wrong than show me the credible evidence that will convince me of that.

Take your time. I'll wait for you.

Ah, yes, the surest sign that a denier is winning the debate. A statement of "you are wrong and I refuse to even discuss the issue."

I have stated my points. I know I will not convince a person to change their religion, which is what global warming has become. I will repeat "follow the money" and you will see why global warming believers keep pushing it despite a lack of warming the last 10 years. I will submit that some have "TB" and are being useful to the people cashing in on it. But a simple look around should show enough reasons to question the whole thing.

NOTE: If you do not know what "TB" is, see the movie "Primary Colors."

Quote: AZDuffman

Only if the flux capacitor gets perfected and you can go back 2,000 years and show them how to keep reliable temperature records with actual thermometers. Then maybe we can talk.

Is there a particular reason that 2,000 years is enough? Or did you just mean "a lot more" and then some time in the future?

Yes, you have repeatedly stated your points again and again without backing them up with any evidence. Where did I ever say I refuse to discuss the issue? I'll discuss the issue with you but you need to provide credible evidence for your points otherwise we might as well be arguing that cheddar is a better cheese than provolone.

Quote: AZDuffman

I know I will not convince a person to change their religion, which is what global warming has become.

I love it when people ask for "credible" evidence because this is what their definition usually is:

"Credible" evidence = Supports global warming
"Not credible" evidence = Doesn't support global warming

Quote: AZDuffman

We keep hearing about needing hundreds of billions to trillions to solve the problem. Where do you think that money will come from? POTUS Obama said he wants my electric bill to "skyrocket" to solve the problem.

Quote: paisiello

I know better not to ask you for a credible source on any of this.

Especially when it is so readily available in a three-second search.

Quote: Beethoven9th

I love it when people ask for "credible" evidence because this is what their definition usually is:

"Credible" evidence = Supports global warming
"Not credible" evidence = Doesn't support global warming

Not true. My definition of credible is someone who is a professional in the field who has published peer reviewed papers on the specific subject. Its kind of like being on a Civil trial jury and trying to determine whose witnesses are more credible:

Expert Witness A - a professional with maybe many years of experience in the specific field with a Ph.D. education in the specific field who has published and is actively publishing many peer reviewed papers in professional journals on the specific subject in question

Expert Witness B - a professional with maybe many years of experience in the specific field with a Ph.D. education in the specific field who has maybe published some peer reviewed papers in professional journals but only on related subjects, not the specific subject in question

Expert Witness C - a non-professional with no experience in the specific field but maybe with a Ph.D. education in a remotely related field but who has not published any peer reviewed papers in professional journals on the subject in question

Expert Witness D - some guy who has a blog but maybe at least on the specific subject in question

Clearly the more type "A" expert witnesses you can find the better to back up your case. If the type "A" experts contradict one another on the specific issue in question then you probably have to go with the consensus unless there is a compelling argument not to. If you believe that the type "A" experts are somehow compromised and who are willing to risk their careers by effectively perjuring themselves in front of their peers then that too needs to have credible evidence to back it up.

At the end of the day you have to go with what is most probable based on the evidence provided by expert testimony not what your own feelings or politics tell you or what you secretly wish were true.

Quote: endermike

Is there a particular reason that 2,000 years is enough? Or did you just mean "a lot more" and then some time in the future?

Just a number I picked fast because I was at work when I posted. Ideally I would like to see 1% of the history of the planet but I do not think the Flux Capacitor will accept BC dates.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Especially when it is so readily available in a three-second search.

Sorry, but I draw the line on doing the research trying to guess what you are referring to. If you make a statement of fact simply provide a link or state where you got the info from. I make the effort so you don't have to, can't you reciprocate the courtesy?

I already posted a link to an article that suggests the costs are not as high as the connotation of "skyrocketing" would suggest. AZDuffman thinks the word "skyrocketing" means poverty. Based on the references made in the article I contend that it only means a lower standard of living then the one we have enjoyed over the last 70 years or so.

Quote: Beethoven9th

I love it when people ask for "credible" evidence because this is what their definition usually is:

"Credible" evidence = Supports global warming
"Not credible" evidence = Doesn't support global warming

Yeah, it's kind of like "Credible" evidence - athiest or agnostic
"Not Credible" evidence - believes in God.

Science is pretty clear on the subject of climate change.

Quote: paisiello

Yes, you have repeatedly stated your points again and again without backing them up with any evidence. Where did I ever say I refuse to discuss the issue? I'll discuss the issue with you but you need to provide credible evidence for your points otherwise we might as well be arguing that cheddar is a better cheese than provolone.

I am stating why I do not accept the premise of global warming, and it is difficult if not impossible to "prove" a negative premise. Believe hype all you want. Live in a small apartment and take the bus all you like. I have heard global cooling, running out of oil, coming world starvation, and a heterosexual AIDS epidemic. That is all I can remember.

None came to pass. It was all hype. Global Warming is the same kind of hype.

Quote: boymimbo

Science is pretty clear on the subject of climate change.

Only if one finds mud to be clear.

Quote: AZDuffman

Global Warming is the same kind of hype.

Except there is credible evidence behind it to support the hypothesis.

Here is a link to an excellent documentary that examines a lot of the global warming science and the skeptics against the claims:
The Climate Wars

The thing to take away from the documentary is that the science after repeated challenges has evolved to be stronger and more convincing each time.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just a number I picked fast because I was at work when I posted. Ideally I would like to see 1% of the history of the planet but I do not think the Flux Capacitor will accept BC dates.

That's a pretty big ask. The planet has existed for around 4.5 billion years. That would ask for accurate records/models going back from present to 45 million years ago. Loosely that correlates with the transition from simpler primates to higher ones. (Humans seem to of emerged as their own species around 200k-500k years ago)

I'm not saying that based on those assumptions you are wrong, but I am saying with that as the burden of proof there is no argument based on human science that could ever change you mind.

Quote: paisiello

Except there is credible evidence behind it to support the hypothesis.

Which is the same thing they say each and every time. Sorry, what the climate hustlers are selling I'm not buying.

Quote: endermike

...as the burden of proof there is no argument based on human science that could ever change your mind.

That was sort of obvious from the beginning.

Quote: AZDuffman

Which is the same thing they say each and every time. Sorry, what the climate hustlers are selling I'm not buying.

I previously already pointed out that is not true.

Quote: endermike

That's a pretty big ask. The planet has existed for around 4.5 billion years. That would ask for accurate records/models going back from present to 45 million years ago. Loosely that correlates with the transition from simpler primates to higher ones. (Humans seem to of emerged as their own species around 200k-500k years ago)

I'm not saying that based on those assumptions you are wrong, but I am saying with that as the burden of proof there is no argument based on human science that could ever change you mind.

Yes, it is a big ask. But trying to prove humans are affecting the planet more than natural cycles and the sun is a big assumption. To say we can intentionally do it is an even bigger one.

Quote: paisiello

I previously already pointed out that is not true.

No, you are just repeating the mantra of "just dummy up and listen to the scientists." Sorry, I use my common sense before I buy, no matter how many scientists are trying to sell it.

Again, global warming is just another "scare" I have seen. It is something to give people who are very secure in life to fulfill their "worry" need. It is a religion for people who do not like the restraints that Judeo-Christian values place on believers. It is just another fad.

Still, I invite believers to move to a small apartment and sell their cars. No vacations. No out of season food. Live 1800s style, with a few modern exceptions. Show me what you believe.

They never do.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, it is a big ask. But trying to prove humans are affecting the planet more than natural cycles and the sun is a big assumption. To say we can intentionally do it is an even bigger one.

We have killed off species. We have stripped forests. We have irrigated the desert. We have split the atom. We have created acid rain and begun to bring it under control. And those are just in the past couple hundred years.

While heating the planet is no small thing, the idea that humans simply aren't capable seems to be a big jump. Again sadly, you don't have much recourse as it would require you to prove that something is impossible, but I think maybe you should loosen up a touch on your assumptions.

Quote: boymimbo

Science is pretty clear on the subject of climate change.

Quote: paisiello

At the end of the day you have to go with what is most probable based on the evidence provided by expert testimony not what your own feelings or politics tell you or what you secretly wish were true.

Human beings are responsible for the sun rising up in the morning. How do I know? Well, all credible scientists agree that the sun rises in the morning. Therefore, I'm right!

Quote: Beethoven9th

Human beings are responsible for the sun rising up in the morning. How do I know? Well, all credible scientists agree that the sun rises in the morning.

Therefore, I'm right!

Sorry, I miss your point. You don't believe the science unless you have checked the results yourself?

Or just a simple stab at humor? (In that case it's not a bad non sequitur, it gave me chuckle, then again I'm an easy laugh)

Quote: endermike

Sorry, I miss your point.

Gee, a guy who doctors other people's quotes doesn't get it? Big surprise...lol

Quote: Beethoven9th

Gee, a guy who doctors other people's quotes doesn't get it? Big surprise...lol

Are you kidding me? We showed screen shots. Nothing was "doctored"

Quote: AZDuffman

But trying to prove humans are affecting the planet more than natural cycles and the sun is a big assumption. To say we can intentionally do it is an even bigger one.

No assumptions, just evidence collected over the last 100 years by 1000's of professionals using the scientific method.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, you are just repeating the mantra of "just dummy up and listen to the scientists."

No, I'm not. I have not ever told you to dummy up. I provided a reference to a peer reviewed paper that contradicted your claim and therefore demonstrates your claim to be false. You have not provided any evidence other than anecdotes from your memory of events it seems from over 30 years ago. No rational person would find your position to be credible (there's that damn word again!).

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry, I use my common sense before I buy, no matter how many scientists are trying to sell it.

Common sense = The collection of prejudices that people acquire by the age of 18.

Quote: AZDuffman

Still, I invite believers to move to a small apartment and sell their cars. No vacations. No out of season food. Live 1800s style, with a few modern exceptions. Show me what you believe.

They never do.

To what purpose would that serve? Just to convince you (which it wouldn't)? Maybe we are all hypocrites but that doesn't change the facts of the issue. And nobody is asking you to live 1800's style, just lower your standard to something that is sustainable for the entire planet. Not a huge sacrifice considering what's potentially at stake.

Quote: endermike

Are you kidding me? We showed screen shots. Nothing was "doctored"

Yeah, keep acting like you don't know what I'm talking about. ;) Doctoring quotes is a very dishonest thing to do.

Quote: paisiello

No assumptions, just evidence collected over the last 100 years by 1000's of professionals using the scientific method.

Just like cooling and running out of oil.

Quote:

Common sense = The collection of prejudices that people acquire by the age of 18.

Actually quite the opposite. At 18 you tend to believe what they tell you, as you get older you become more of a skeptic. By now I was supposed to be freezing due to global cooling, have no oil to heat the place because we were going to run out, and be burying my heterosexual friends because of the hetero-AIDS epidemic. We would be starving because the world could never produce enough food for the billions of new bodies on the planet since the 1960s.

The USSR was going to bury us. Then Japan was supposed to bury us. Now China is going to bury us.

Quote:

To what purpose would that serve? Just to convince you (which it wouldn't)? Maybe we are all hypocrites but that doesn't change the facts of the issue. And nobody is asking you to live 1800's style, just lower your standard to something that is sustainable for the entire planet. Not a huge sacrifice considering what's potentially at stake.

Well it would show you believe in what you say and YOU are going to make changes, not ask everyone to do so. Leading by example we call it. Give it a try and report back, I am curious as to how it will turn out.

Leading by example only works when someone's mind might actually be changed.

Quote: AZDuffman

Just like cooling and running out of oil.

On the first, you have been corrected several times. You are not wrong, but lying. But hey, let's go off and lead by example so the legions of mendacity can kill us all.

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually quite the opposite. At 18 you tend to believe what they tell you, as you get older you become more of a skeptic.

You would be hard pressed to find an 18 year old who believes what you tell them these days!

The world would never go far if we only relied on common sense. The sun appears to be going around the earth with the earth standing still and that is what was believed before Copernicus. It's common sense - I mean that's what it looks like and you can't tell the difference just by looking at the sun. But when you look at the motion of the planets the simplest explanation is that the earth and the planets all go around the sun. But unless you look at that piece of evidence collected by astronomers you couldn't tell.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well it would show you believe in what you say and YOU are going to make changes, not ask everyone to do so. Leading by example we call it. Give it a try and report back, I am curious as to how it will turn out.

Are you suggesting I don't believe what I am saying and just trying to trick you in some sort of elaborate practical joke?

It is pointless unless everyone collectively agrees to it. Or at least the majority agree.

Game over. Too many people claiming other people are lying. Too many people near-trolling each other. Too much faux umbrage. Closing this thread until further notice. AKA Time Out.

You are invited to continue the topic discussion at Diversity Tomorrow, by the way.