Man-Made Climate Change ... take 78

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Yes, the media says "scientists", because, by nature, a media piece has to be accessible to the common folk. What you want is a monster bibliography with every written word.

Experts and scientists say smoking is bad for you ...

Again, I didn't ask anyone to provide me with anything.

Experts and scientists say smoking is bad for you. I agree. But before I validate their findings I would still ask who they were, what were their qualifications and methodology.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'll be in the "The huge unstable ball of fire in the sky controls this stuff" until someone can give me an argument that is a better fit for Occam's Razor.

Do you mean "the simplest answer is probably the right one"?

Today on earth we'll burn through 12879000000 litres of oil.

Is this:

A) harmless
B) harmful

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you mean "the simplest answer is probably the right one"?

Today on earth we'll burn through 12879000000 litres of oil.

Is this:

A) harmless
B) harmful

To whom?

To humans, greatly beneficial.
To plants, CO2 is food.
To the atmosphere, 0.03% of it is CO2.

So capital A, capital A, and lower case b.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Man, you have really gone off the deep end on this.

I didn't ask you to show me anything. I said these were questions that needed to be asked. I want to be clear, I have not once said the study was flawed. I have not once said that I don't believe the conclusions to be true. Yet you have come after my posts full force. Weird.

Your labelling of money influencing results as a conspiracy theory is a bit naive.

I am hardly going off the deep end here.

You took issue with how a climate change article references scientists and imply that they should provide us with direction of who are the scientists? What qualifies them? As I said, anyone can look up the scientists if they please, but the nature of news articles does not lend them to long bibliographies. If someone has questions, they can go look it up themselves. What more "pertinent" information do you require in a news update? You asked me "WHICH scientists? What are their fields? ", I said "look it up" - your skepticism is the engine of science, but you/one has to actually LOOK for the answers instead of complaining that they were not provided.

However, my "beef" with those questions is the implied suggestion that the news story lacks credibility. That the information in question is less true... while you may agree with the issue, your questions are brought up as a critique regularly, in a manner of debate that is seen in the Ben Stein Expelled debates (see discussions between the experts and the people behind the movie).

And as for money influencing results, yes, you are right, money influences results a HUGE number of studies. However, my little point was just that the argument that ALL of the scientists were paid to push the climate-change agenda is absurd (to me at least, and this is my opinion). But that is a macro view, on a micro view each could be disected for agenda, motivation, etc.

I did not mean to come at you in any way, shape, or form - so apologies if my syntax appeared virtiol-infused.

Originally Posted by Flame On

But if you're someone that; as I do, thinks the planet is going to get more and more affected enormously with this, then you'd be annoyed with all the inaction that comes from the need for complete proof and a clouding of the issues.

This really sums up why this argument can become heated.

The enemy is at the gates and potentially threatening our grandkids. Meanwhile while a few of us are arguing which weapon to use (OIL! ROCKS!), while there are several that are saying "what are you worried about? We don't see anyone. Oh, those people at the gate? Nah, they are always there and they will tire out regardless"

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Gozer

To whom?

To humans, greatly beneficial.
To plants, CO2 is food.
To the atmosphere, 0.03% of it is CO2.

So capital A, capital A, and lower case b.

Ahh, but now you've changed it.

The simplest answer is B. It's harmful to us and the earth and we all know it.

But forget all this global warming talk for a minute.

Should we continue to consume at this rate and continue to accelerate our consumption?

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Gozer

To humans, greatly beneficial.
To plants, CO2 is food.
To the atmosphere, 0.03% of it is CO2.

Lucky girl then ...

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ahh, but now you've changed it.

The simplest answer is B. It's harmful to us and the earth and we all know it.

But forget all this global warming talk for a minute.

Should we continue to consume at this rate and continue to accelerate our consumption?

You asked a vague question, don't dismiss my answer.

The simplest answer is far-and-away A. If we all suddenly stopped burning oil there would be chaos and death of biblical proportions from the panic alone.


As for your other question - and please read my answer instead of answering for me as you did with the above - it will be collectively beneficial when we will stop using hydrocarbons. However, I contend that to slow down innovation by refusing to drill and making oil increasingly exclusive would be counter-productive.

People will stop using hydrocarbons when a superior alternative is available, and utilizing hydrocarbons to this end is the most efficient (and probably only) option. Furthermore, unless we intend on militarily enforcing this environmentalism on developing nations like India and China then developing an alternative is the only sustainable solution.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Lucky girl then ...

I trust you pedal-power your own computer then, otherwise you're part of that.

I don't deny or romanticize our absurd consumption, but I don't blame the soldiers for the war.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I trust you pedal-power your own computer then, otherwise you're part of that.

I don't deny or romanticize our absurd consumption, but I don't blame the soldiers for the war.

Wow was I ever wrong! Thank you for showing me the light and not changing your argument whatsoever to make up for an obtuse answer.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You asked a vague question, don't dismiss my answer.

The simplest answer is far-and-away A. If we all suddenly stopped burning oil there would be chaos and death of biblical proportions from the panic alone.


As for your other question - and please read my answer instead of answering for me as you did with the above - it will be collectively beneficial when we will stop using hydrocarbons. However, I contend that to slow down innovation by refusing to drill and making oil increasingly exclusive would be counter-productive.

People will stop using hydrocarbons when a superior alternative is available, and utilizing hydrocarbons to this end is the most efficient (and probably only) option. Furthermore, unless we intend on militarily enforcing this environmentalism on developing nations like India and China then developing an alternative is the only sustainable solution.

It wasn't a vague question. It was about as straightforward as I could make it. The answer clearly isn't "harmless".

That doesn't mean we don't benefit from it, however, and I didn't suggest that we don't.

Forgetting climate change entirely, we still know it is bad to burn all this stuff and an unsustainable way to run our society yet we still continue to do it.

I didn't say anything about stopping drilling or shutting down our civilization so I don't know why you are telling me that doing so would be a bad thing.

I didn't say anything about slowing down innovation or making it more exclusive either.

And I agree, developing an alternative is the only solution. In the meantime I think we should stop exacerbating what I see as a serious problem.

We don't have to trade in a Coupe de Ville for a garbage-powered hemp sedan when the time comes.

[Burninator]

How We Know Global Warming is Real

Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced climate change. He is a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/...te_change.html

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How We Know Global Warming is Real

Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced climate change. He is a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/...te_change.html

Yes increase CO2 causes greenhouse effect which will increase temperatures, yes that concept has been around for a long time....and certainly has an effect, how much? That is what is up to debate...

but why the need in those circles to call it climate change? when this article is focusing on global warming...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

but why the need in those circles to call it climate change? when this article is focusing on global warming...

What do you mean? Climate change and global warming are an interchangeable term.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Gozer

To whom?
To the atmosphere, 0.03% of it is CO2.

.

So you never thought about why when the atmospheric system is in natural equilibrium, CO2 only comprises of 0.03%?

I suppose nature has it all wrong and humans know best. Let's increase it to 50% percent because obviously more is beneficial (it's just simple math).

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What do you mean? Climate change and global warming are an interchangeable term.

It is?

If I remeber correctly and simply put..the fear a few years ago was the earth was warming (which is clear)..but when some colder winters happened, people started to question the warming theory, so the term was updated to climate change, so that when it was hotter than usual..they all can claim climate change and when it was colder than usual, they all can claim climate change, so what does increased CO2 levels which was the cornerstone of the article have to do with colder winters, which is part of the climate change fear? Shouldnt we be seeing warmer winters? Thanks to the CO2 levels? Which are clearly increasing....why was it updated to climate change? I am confused here!!!!

[Displaced Flames fan]

l.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flames89

I am hardly going off the deep end here.

You took issue with how a climate change article references scientists and imply that they should provide us with direction of who are the scientists? What qualifies them? As I said, anyone can look up the scientists if they please, but the nature of news articles does not lend them to long bibliographies. If someone has questions, they can go look it up themselves. What more "pertinent" information do you require in a news update? You asked me "WHICH scientists? What are their fields? ", I said "look it up" - your skepticism is the engine of science, but you/one has to actually LOOK for the answers instead of complaining that they were not provided.

However, my "beef" with those questions is the implied suggestion that the news story lacks credibility. That the information in question is less true... while you may agree with the issue, your questions are brought up as a critique regularly, in a manner of debate that is seen in the Ben Stein Expelled debates (see discussions between the experts and the people behind the movie). Huh?

And as for money influencing results, yes, you are right, money influences results a HUGE number of studies. However, my little point was just that the argument that ALL of the scientists were paid to push the climate-change agenda is absurd (to me at least, and this is my opinion). But that is a macro view, on a micro view each could be disected for agenda, motivation, etc.

I did not mean to come at you in any way, shape, or form - so apologies if my syntax appeared virtiol-infused.



This really sums up why this argument can become heated.

The enemy is at the gates and potentially threatening our grandkids. Meanwhile while a few of us are arguing which weapon to use (OIL! ROCKS!), while there are several that are saying "what are you worried about? We don't see anyone. Oh, those people at the gate? Nah, they are always there and they will tire out regardless"

The statements in bold are not at all what I said or representative of the points I was trying to make. Oh well, I'm tired of banging my head against the wall.

[MelBridgeman]

Ok so on the Nature of things tonight...at the very beginning of the show there is a UBC scientist who is talking about how fast the glaciers are melting in Greenland...ok so how did the glacier girl get covered in 264 feet of ice over a 50 year span if the glaciers are melting??

[Thor]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes increase CO2 causes greenhouse effect which will increase temperatures, yes that concept has been around for a long time....and certainly has an effect, how much? That is what is up to debate...

but why the need in those circles to call it climate change? when this article is focusing on global warming...

Bush's top environment guy back years ago had this long well researched paper on the environment, someone went along the report and suggested to change "global warming" to "climate change" to sound less scary.

So from that point forward pundits all over the USA started calling it 'climate change' which implies a natural force as the obvious factor; where as global warming in the media has been the key word for human effected warming.

So its another manipulation to attempt to confuse the public, there is a great documentary on this exact topic about media manipulation and the people involved in the muddying of this issue, I'll see if I can find the name for you.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Ok so on the Nature of things tonight...at the very beginning of the show there is a UBC scientist who is talking about how fast the glaciers are melting in Greenland...ok so how did the glacier girl get covered in 264 feet of ice over a 50 year span if the glaciers are melting??

Greenland is a big place. It's possible that they are melting over a large percentage of the island and growing elsewhere.