Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:21pm PT
|
That is why I wrote it that way.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:32pm PT
|
My take on the odds of humans doing anything meaningful about CO2 production? 5% max; about the same as the odds of humans getting off oil before it runs out from underneath them. Are humans smarter than slime mold? Only time will tell...
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:43pm PT
|
Bruce Kay : It is so nefarious to want to tax -CO2- for such a blatantly false goal of climate change remediation. Or any other process that releases CO2.
Media campaigns to deprogram the public from thinking CO2 is bad and causing
climate change need to be instituted asap.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:45pm PT
|
Capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. But a big problem is that it doesn't take all costs into account. It's cheaper for a factory to dump waste into a lake or river, but then everyone who wants to drink or play in the river pays the price instead of the people that dumped it.
I also feel that we can't do too much too fast to change the nature of our economy and it's current dependency on fossil fuels, but I think we should be investing in green energy because whoever controls it is going to have a big leg up in this capitalism game.
|
|
Ashcroft
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:47pm PT
|
The logic goes something like this, "if we have adjusted for x, y, and z natural factors in the data set, all the rest of the warming must be anthropomorphically caused."
Justin01, As I understand your post, you are suggesting that the way climate science works is that modelers account for all the "natural" effects that they can, and then label any remaining warming anthropogenic. That's not really the way that climate science has developed historically, and not the way that it works now.
The ability of greenhouse gases to trap solar radiation has been recognized and understood for more than 100 years. This was recognized long before careful atmospheric measurements could confirm that atmospheric carbon dioxide was increasing, and long before global surface temperature records were so complete that long-term trends could be observed. What has happened in recent years is that there are finally observations of surface temperature, ocean temperature, atmospheric temperature, etc, that confirm what the theory predicted. Rather than being a case of coming up with a theory to explain observations, it's much more a case of finally having observations that confirm the theory. Moreover, the observations show warming not just in general, but especially in the parts of the globe and parts of the atmosphere that anthropogenic global warming would affect most strongly.
You suggest that there might be some other physical process at work, a physical process that we don't suspect, and that just happens to mimic what would happen if anthropogenic greenhouse gases were warming the atmosphere. That's a good point, but ought not too be pushed too far. By definition, nobody can disprove the existence of mystery effect that is indistinguishable from anthropogenic global warming but unrelated to human activity.
The way science works is that one theory reigns until another theory comes along and displaces it. One of the strongest arguments against an unknown natural effect that mimics anthropogenic greenhouse warming is simply that nobody has identified such an effect. The person who upends the entire field of climate science by demonstrating that 97 percent of climate scientists are wrong and that human activity has nothing to do with climate change will be hugely rewarded, yet nobody has come close to doing that. Those who reject mainstream climate science have nothing to offer in its place - they offer no theory that better explains the observed data.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 07:51pm PT
|
FET
Go away and fester in your own make believe world. But...
Try to avoid burning carbon... You'll be dead in a week.
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 08:28pm PT
|
Please do cite a ref that indicates that 97% of the climate science field concurs with AGW. Factually.
That refers to the Doran and Zimmerman survey, published 2009 in EOS, by the American Geophysical Union.
see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
...A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.........In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. .....
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 08:52pm PT
|
^^^ I agree - probably only the Communists took part... thanks for your astute analysis...
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2011 - 09:32pm PT
|
The Chief, a man of your talents should not be wasting his days arguing with a bunch of idiots on the Taco, who can't even figure out science!
There are bigger fish to fry. You need to start editing some of these academic journals and writing public policy.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 24, 2011 - 10:24pm PT
|
That's the darn smartest thing I've heard for a while there, kunlun. And with The Chief being the name of our representitive, it shouldn't take long for the people who help him write policy understand just who it is that's really on top of things.
Why, here's something interesting from the report on that Crazy survey, completely verifying what The Chief has brought to us:
With 3146 individuals completing the survey,
the participant response rate for the
survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response
rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al.,
2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey
participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions
and 6% were from Canadian institutions;
the remaining 4% were from institutions
in 21 other nations. More than 90%
of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had
master’s degrees. With survey participants
asked to select a single category, the most
common areas of expertise reported were
geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%),
and oceanography (10.5%). General geology,
hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology
each accounted for 5–7% of the
total respondents. Approximately 5% of
the respondents were climate scientists,
and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that
more than 50% of their peer-reviewed
publications in the past 5 years have been
on the subject of climate change.
In other words, a group of 3100 complete wankers.
How could they have the nerve to conclude:
It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term climate processes.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2011 - 09:10am PT
|
The Fet wrote:
Capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. But a big problem is that it doesn't take all costs into account.
So then what you are writing, is that capitalism (especially unregulated, unfettered captialism), is not very efficient at allocating scare resources, since it does not take all costs into account.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2011 - 09:16am PT
|
The Chief wrote:
Point of post, if the AGW folks want to really win the hearts and minds of the common people as I posted above, you seriously need to look at your attitudes towards anyone that counters/confronts your way of thinking.
I've read a significant amount of the exchange between you and Ed, and I would dare to write that between the two of you it is not Ed who needs to seriously look at his attitude.
With your attitude, how many people would you calculate that you've won over?
I kindly request that you take your own advice when it comes to exchanges with people who "counter/confron your way of thinking". It's pretty clear you don't like it.
After having quickly scanned through the "home for sale..." thread, I have a hard time believing that the "The Chief" from that thread and the "The Chief" from this thread are the same person.
Maybe you should work on that before giving advice out on other people's attitudes.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2011 - 11:15am PT
|
Atheism: In the beginning, man created god.
Been working just fine for me for the past 60 years.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2011 - 11:58am PT
|
Ok, here goes per the Chief
In the beginning, man created fear of death.
I AGREE! Good one Chief.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2011 - 01:47pm PT
|
And life is beautiful all the time.
And those nice young men in their clean white coats are coming to take you away.
News Flash: gas is NOT $8 a gallon. And no one is "panicking".
Stop fear mongering, and stop pointing to one isolated part of this country and then generalizing by implication that everything is just as fine all over the USA because you can see some holes full of water.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2011 - 05:54pm PT
|
CC
FET Go away and fester in your own make believe world. But...
Try to avoid burning carbon... You'll be dead in a week.
My make believe world LOL.
Dead in a week? You hysterical end of the world types are really foolish.
You live in a state of self delusion, reinforced by right wing media which preys on you, because your don't have the courage to face your fears or the empathy to face your selfishness.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2011 - 02:02am PT
|
the Fet - you're not so ignorant to not know that the food and water you consume were made possible by burning carbon based fuels.
Carbon based food delivered by the burning of carbon based fuels.
I can't imagine the contrived guilt warmists must feel just living
day to day releasing clouds of CO2 every minute.
Your belief system says CO2 increases into the atmosphere is bad yet your
daily existence increases it more. This says you don't take all this AGW stuff that seriously.
Bravo!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2011 - 02:18am PT
|
What a dum fuk.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!