Don't overreact, I read him as saying that there's no evidence that the current warming is due to solar input, not that solar input has no impact on climate at all.
So how do you tell the difference between a fanatic and someone who's looked at the contrary evidence and decided that it isn't evidence or it isn't contrary?
I overreacted when he said "There's basically no shred of evidence to it". Wouldn't you?
That's as good an argument as saying there's basically no shred of evidence to evolution. It's obviously untrue when the basis of all climate models (despite your position) must involve solar output. There are mountains of studies and academic works based on solar activity as the primary catalyst for temperature fluctuations in the earth's history. It's basically the foundation of it.
What climate change activists often do now however, is to discount the effects of that, and to place man-made factors in the forefront. I simply do not agree wholly with that position and there are plenty of dissenting scientists as well from the supposed consensus.
Talking about the Saskatchewan Roughriders does not provide any clues into why the Calgary Flames sucked in November.
The hole in the ozone layer is a different phenomenon. The breakdown of O3 is a completely different issue from the increase in greenhouse gases and the rise in global temperature caused by entrapment of the solar energy in our atmosphere.
The hole in the ozone layer was caused by endemic chlorofluorocarbon emissions and is one brilliant example of political, scientific, and popular momentum causing an improvement in what was an environmental catastrophe as legislations and regulations against those emissions have caused the hole in the ozone layer to return to nominal levels.
The existence of a hole in the ozone layer and it's increase and decrease due to CFC emissions was easily tracked. Temperature change and the causes of it are much less readily determined and no, there is no consensus and yes the science is still debatable.
You're kidding right? CFC isn't a greenhouse gas?
It's the fourth largest besides Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. Ozone is not only broken down by a reaction with CFC's and HCFC's but also a lack of oxygen, which an increase of emission's are. It is all related, and to think otherwise is ignorant.
I'm not going to get into the science of it, because I already received an A in the course. If you want to continue to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence, do it at your own discretion.
If you want, email Dr. Melissa Giovanni, PhD for the geology department at the University of Calgary for questions and doubts you have, and I'm sure she'll be happy to explain exactly the research. mkgiovan@ucalgary.ca
Except if they happen on a smaller scale. Just because changes over long periods exist does not mean that changes over shorter periods are not possible, or that they are not important.
Statistically speaking the earth has historically been inhospitable to human life.
Arguing that there are changes not influenced by humans is not an argument that this change is not influenced by humans.
And just because it exists doesn't mean it's accurate or legitimate. How does one tell the difference?
Isn't this sounding like some of our famous CP religious debate threads? That's why I see the same parallels between religious arguments and climate change arguments and why I take issue with the movement itself. I don't take issue with the science. I've never argued that changes are not due to humans. I'm not arrogant or learned enough to make any claim of the sort. I said I'm not on the bandwagon. Not that I don't believe in it.
My positions is that climate change activists need to examine alternative evidence and that the science is not complete and there is no consensus as is often claimed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
You're implying I don't do that. I've asked for the goods are you aren't giving them out.
I think we both think the same thing with respect to climate change. You want us to decarbonize even though you're skeptical and I'm not as skeptical of the evidence and therefore want us to decarbonize.
The Economist had a good passage a while back saying that even if you're skeptical, the global costs are something like 2-3% of what we would have grown anyway. And considering the potentially disastrous ramifications, this is like payina 2-3% insurance premium to mitigate against those outcomes. If you think about it, you pay at least that much of your income per year for life insurance why wouldn't we do it for the life of our planet too?
I'm not going to get into the science of it, because I already received an A in the course. If you want to continue to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence, do it at your own discretion.
If you want, email Dr. Melissa Giovanni, PhD for the geology department at the University of Calgary for questions and doubts you have, and I'm sure she'll be happy to explain exactly the research. mkgiovan@ucalgary.ca
Congratulations on getting an A in GLGY 209 - An Introduction to Geology (non-majors).
Did you go outside this month? This has been a brutal winter.
Did you go outside this month? My back yard is the whole world!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I overreacted when he said "There's basically no shred of evidence to it". Wouldn't you?
I went with what I understood he was saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
It's obviously untrue when the basis of all climate models (despite your position) must involve solar output.
Um, what? When did I say my position is that the basis of all climate models do not involve solar output? I clearly said "The sun accounts for the vast majority of heat on our world."
I said that solar output does not account for our current warming.. how could it when the solar output has been decreasing for 50 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
There are mountains of studies and academic works based on solar activity as the primary catalyst for temperature fluctuations in the earth's history. It's basically the foundation of it.
Of course. So when the solar activity goes down, and the temperature goes up, you have to figure out why that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
What climate change activists often do now however, is to discount the effects of that, and to place man-made factors in the forefront.
But why do they put the man-made factors in the forefront? Because they want to? A global conspiracy of climate scientists? Or because that's what the science points to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I simply do not agree wholly with that position and there are plenty of dissenting scientists as well from the supposed consensus.
To use your example, there are plenty of dissenting scientists who reject the consensus of evolution as well.
There's always dissension, the question is why are they dissenting? Some dissent because they get attention. Scientists are humans, some want to be the big fish in the small climate change denial pond.
However science has proven repeatedly that the dissenting opinion that is RIGHT gets recognized and their view becomes the consensus view.
Um, what? When did I say my position is that the basis of all climate models do not involve solar output? I clearly said "The sun accounts for the vast majority of heat on our world."
To use your example, there are plenty of dissenting scientists who reject the consensus of evolution as well.
There's always dissension, the question is why are they dissenting? Some dissent because they get attention. Scientists are humans, some want to be the big fish in the small climate change denial pond.
However science has proven repeatedly that the dissenting opinion that is RIGHT gets recognized and their view becomes the consensus view.
When I spoke about "your position" I meant it in the 3rd person sense as in "despite whatever your (as in everybody reading) position may be".
In this specific example, scientists are labeled "dissenters" (which is very unfortunate) due to their opposition to a much more politically well funded majority view.
I'm sure that we agree that dissenting opinions are vital to the process of science. It's not so much my concern that they are proven right or are vindicated as I have absolutely no stake in the matter. I'm not championing "dissenting" scientists are all. I'm merely pointing out there is evidence that funding and support (both political and academic) has been allocated more strongly to one side than the other and this should be recognized and perhaps remedied. I also realize that science is not a pure or egalitarian process but is largely dependant on economic and public support and so I don't expect it.
Quote:
But why do they put the man-made factors in the forefront? Because they want to? A global conspiracy of climate scientists? Or because that's what the science points to?
I have no problems when the science points to it, but I have had enough arguments with people who simply jump on the issue on a purely emotional basis without drawing their conclusions after finding enough objective information about it. It's the same with religion isn't it?
I have to play devil's advocate by nature. I have to point out alternative explanations. I have read up enough and seen enough of it to see that man has an effect on global warming. Like I said before, I'm just not on the bandwagon (ie: the movement, a supporter, a political lobbyist, internet guy who cares for that reason, etc.). I'm not against decarbonization legislation.
Isn't this sounding like some of our famous CP religious debate threads? That's why I see the same parallels between religious arguments and climate change arguments and why I take issue with the movement itself.
That's because for most people what they think is driven by ideology and beliefs, not based on evidence and reason.
You can take whatever issues you want with whatever movement you desire, what people do with science isn't a flaw in the science. People use chemistry to kill each other, that doesn't mean chemistry is flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
My positions is that climate change activists need to examine alternative evidence and that the science is not complete and there is no consensus as is often claimed.
But politically and ideologically, the term "consensus" is not used in that manner nor it is correctly understood by many people. The word "consensus" when used by politicians and lobbyists and the media is more often used to emotionally sway people into believe that the science is 100% agreed upon and completed.
We both understand that science by definition operates on incompleteness and that theory is the the best tested and explanatory proof until proven otherwise. How many do not and claim that a scientific theory is only an idea that has not been not been proven or supported?
There is a majority view and I don't believe at all that they are wrong. I just think there is plenty of merit to the minority of view as well and I am more interested in studying and talking about than because it does not receive enough attention.
I don't disbelieve man made climate change. I take issue with the so-called "climategate". For me, this is a social and political issue. Not a scientific one.
Bad science! Then man simple destroys the evidence. The is a full 52 minute vid if you want. "As a scientist I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore"
When I spoke about "your position" I meant it in the 3rd person sense as in "despite whatever your (as in everybody reading) position may be".
Ah ok, fair enough, my apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
I'm merely pointing out there is evidence that funding and support (both political and academic) has been allocated more strongly to one side than the other and this should be recognized and perhaps remedied.
Which evidence? Even on the face of it it seems a ridiculous accusation as to be true it would also require all scientists to be in on the conspiracy, as the outcome of the science would have to be planned well in advance of the funding.
It's not like they're funding a study called "is global warming true", they're funding studies about when plants germinate at what latitudes, or examining ice cores, or counting tree rings, or one of a million other pieces of information that feed into the conclusion but in and of themselves you can't "preallocate" funds to things to get a desired conclusion. You don't know in advance when funding a satellite to measure solar output if the data will support the conclusion or not.
There was a great writeup about this I read a while back about the whole "scientists support global warming to get more funding" fallacy, I wish I could find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
It's the same with religion isn't it?
It's the same with any ideological position.
Which is one of science's strengths, while scientists themselves might be ideological, and those might use its conclusions for ideological purposes, the process itself isn't.
Bad science! Then man simple destroys the evidence. The is a full 52 minute vid if you want. "As a scientist I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore"
I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.
Which is one of science's strengths, while scientists themselves might be ideological, and those might use its conclusions for ideological purposes, the process itself isn't.
How often is the public exposed to the pure process? Most often than not, they are given compartmentalized, summarized, abridged, and journalistically rendered (complete with any bias or editorialization that may come with it) versions or what politicians and panels throw up on slides for the general public.
I believe intentions are pure but science is driven by funding and when one direction receives more attention, support, and momentum, that area will expand and aggregate upon something that is more politically and publically desirable.
I am not arguing at all that scientists are fudging numbers or are are purposely supporting one side just to receive benefits. I'm saying it's a passive social effect that creeps into science. Those who do not adhere are ostracized by their peers, get labeled dissenters, etc.
I am just concerned that the climate change issue has become such a beast that it unduly affects the science that should drive it. It concerns me that the climate issue is a "easy villain" for politicians to become champions of (whether they are for or are against the issue). That's what this thread was started about in the first place! It concerns me that politicians and supporters on both sides are using shoddy science or the editorialized versions of it to further their agendas (not to mention public polls and the bible!)
If you are convinced that this is wholly not the case based on the book you read, then I will have to read it as well. I take issue with ideology and people who adhere too rigidly to it, nomatter which side they are on. That's my stake in this.
I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.
So much for his credibility.
I got one minute in 30 seconds in before I heard my TV shout "HADOKEN!" and I become completely side tracked and turned it off after missing the next five minutes by Wikiing the new Street Fighter/Marvel game.
That's what this thread was started about in the first place! It concerns me that politicians and supporters on both sides are using shoddy science or the editorialized versions of it to further their agendas (not to mention public polls and the bible!)
Yup, that's what the OP was about, and I agree.
Unfortunately I don't think there's anything that can be done about it, because you can replace climate science with anything else and the same thing happens; as long as there's a society with some people in charge and other people not, there'll be people manipulating information for their own gain.
I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.
So much for his credibility.
Hmmm....What would that be? Freedom of Information? What was the lie? And why would he lie? Especially from a guy who is actually a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming. It would be very odd that he would lie to distort things against his own beliefs.
Lying to misrepresent someone else's position or to lend support to your own is common. I supposed it could also be misinformed, but that looks almost as bad.
I chose lying because it was such a common refrain when the email leak first came out from those that were trying to find something to work with, I'd find it improbable he didn't know of either the misrepresentation of details by some deniers at the time or the actual facts.
And I'm not too worried about my credibility, it is what it is, I just read what I can, understand what I can, and work from there.
You're kidding right? CFC isn't a greenhouse gas?
It's the fourth largest besides Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. Ozone is not only broken down by a reaction with CFC's and HCFC's but also a lack of oxygen, which an increase of emission's are. It is all related, and to think otherwise is ignorant.
I'm not going to get into the science of it, because I already received an A in the course. If you want to continue to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence, do it at your own discretion.
If you want, email Dr. Melissa Giovanni, PhD for the geology department at the University of Calgary for questions and doubts you have, and I'm sure she'll be happy to explain exactly the research. mkgiovan@ucalgary.ca
I really liked that prof. She was a little bit "typical American" but other than that she was great. Never seen a prof call out dbags who were disrupting lectures like she did. Not ugly either.
This post contributes nothing to this thread as far as climate change or ######ed republicans are concerned. Just wanted to chime in on that. Well, I guess I'm saying I agree with you Cole because you presumably learned from Giovanni.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.
So much for his credibility.
Honest queston. Isn't it bold faced lie?
Or is this like the other things I found out I was screwing up years later (intensive purposes, playing it by year etc).
