Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2011 - 03:19am PT
|
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.
You don't undertand my belief system so why are you telling me what it says? Is it because you can't debate my actual position?
So you must think that since all humans exhale co2 all "warmists" must be terribly conflicted that they are destroying the Earth with every breath, so they all think they should just commit suicide right? Wrong, no matter how many times I've said it you either can't comprehend it or you choose to ignore that creating co2 is fine in moderation. The problem is creating so much of it that it changes the climate. It's like drinking alcohol, 1 or 2 drinks a day is fine, actually it's beneficial in ways (alcohol may help with heart disease, co2 is needed for plants), but 6-10 drinks a day is probably going to screw you up or even kill you (and excess co2 is very likely causing GW, which may make the climate worse for people).
Reducing fossil fuel use also: saves money, helps local air quality, and keeps money in your pocket instead of in the hands of Opec.
I imagine when people like you read posts like this you may think about it for while and almost come to some new understandings, but then your defense mechanisms kick in and you find ways to twist what I wrote in your mind and revert back to your self delusions.
As I quoted a few pages back:
The U.S. economy remains only about 13 percent energy efficient. That still unacceptably high level of inefficiency either will be allowed to remain in place and therefore leave the U.S. mired in lackluster economic activity … or it will be tackled head-on, leading to new efficiency advances and unleashing robust future economic growth in the U.S. For example, Japan and several European countries are about 20% efficient, a factor of 1.5 higher than the U.S.
How big might the next round of potential energy efficiency be? If we invested in more energy productive technologies, energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouses gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050. And that gain in energy efficiency would not only mean reduced greenhouse gas emissions, it would result in lower energy bill for consumers.
Instead of helping the USA by encouraging efficiency and finding new energy sources the deniers put their energy into claiming there is no AGW so there's no need to change how we are doing things.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 01:05am PT
|
You guys need to get away from the ad hominem...
I am certainly not in league with the chief or cc, because the majority of there comments to not deal with the issue, but only concern themselves with insult. I think Ed approaches some degree of rationality (he misses the forest for the trees though I fear), but even he gets dragged in. I am not even going to go into the myriad of other asinine comments from other AWG proponents.
My beef with AGW has nothing to do with impure motives, and there are many among both parties to boot. I am not an employee of the energy sector, nor do I work for someone who is paid by the oil industry. I am a lowly Mechanical Engineer. It has to do with the lack of proof in my mind.
I, having constructed many models for professional aims, know that models will say whatever the creators want them to say. Sometimes while modeling, I know I am a liar...somewhat. What gives me confidence in them is through test. Let me be clear, models do not constitute proof. They are good for predicting known inputs across testable outcomes after they have been successfully proven. And even with that said, most models are considered good, if they are within 25% accurate, after being proven through testing. All computer models are tuned to data sets, and if a data set has no bearing on future outcomes. ie solid data does not bound the models results, then the models outlandish predictions are complete hogwash. If your model predicts a tipping point, it is beyond suspect, it is crap. Because tipping points show you the bounds of your model, not the bounds of your system.
Again, models are just computer calculations. You can make a computer output anything you like. Seriously anything you like. You can couch our assumptions, and calculations, and estimating bullshit in any technical terminological way to obfuscate your deception. At the end of the day, if you can not successfully prove your model through solid testable data. It is bologna. If your model is not testable and bondable by observation, it holds no water. You may say, that time will prove your right, but so far, it has been a bitch. And in 40 years, if global warming is out of control and the world is starting to ice over (kind of a confusing mix I know), then it will be time to start doing something about CO2. But so far, time has not been your ally. In terms of data, mankind is kicking ass on mitigating mother natures wrath. So far fossil fuels and technology made possible by the incredible energy they provide have helped us mightily in mitigating natural disastrous, and you will have to come up with provable and impressively compelling reasons why that trend will not continue. Models are not compelling...
We are not talking about something so simple as aerosoles or ddt. We are talking about CO2, one of the most ubiquitous and life changing gasses that one could conceivably regulate. You better have a better explanation than, "the model told me so."
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 05:06am PT
|
The Chief wrote:
I am not the one trying to sell the world on an agenda that will cost them more taxes and tell them that they can no longer do as they have for most of their lives, freely.
The world changes, society changes, and sometimes we have to adapt to those changes. Freedom, as defined by the US constitution, extends only “to your neighbors nose”. So freedom, since the beginning of the notion of society, has its limits, and those limits are ever evolving as society evolves.
9/11 occurred and changed processes and procedures at airports. When now taking a plane, one can no longer accompany another to the gate. We’ve lost that “freedom” to the idea that the greater good and security would be better served with these measures. Out of honest curiosity, have you written any posts over the last 10 years arguing against the Patriot Act as you are currently arguing in this thread?
The fact is that climate change is real, and the globe is currently warming. For argument’s sake let’s just say it’s not due at all to human activity – that still does not change the fact that the sea levels are rising. Given that’s the case, why are we still building along the coast and why are my taxes going to beef up areas that will be fighting a continual fight against this rise? At the least should we not stop all building and development in these areas?
Another example is New Orleans and the Mississippi river basin (or even take the levees in the Sac area) – lots of tax dollars (my tax dollars are in there somewhere) have been spent to try to overcome the ridiculous, and yet not only do I pay for the levees to protect people who are stupid enough to build their homes in a flood plain, but I also pay taxes for the FEMA rescue and clean up. If the French quarter survived the floods of Katrina (as I understand it) it’s because way back when people adapted buildings/construction to nature and did not try to adapt nature to what they wanted to build.
The Chief wrote:
I am not the one promoting that people should change their way of life based on computer models.
No, but you are encouraging people to continue on consuming and living their lives without any kind of adaptation or consideration for current status of the climate, the economy, world population, etc., etc.
The Chief wrote:
My attitude is not the issue.
Sure it is. Ed has shown you nothing but courtesy and respect, and you resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.
The Chief wrote:
I am not the salesman.
Ed is certainly not a salesman, and his post history on this thread and on this site overwhelming supports that he is not the salesman.
The Chief wrote:
I am merely one of the many millions out here that is not buying into the shet hypocrisy that these people are selling.
It is my job to have an attitude! I am the prospective buyer.
Really? It’s your job to be disrespectful in this manner to Ed? To anyone else who does not agree with you on this particular subject?
But by your logic I am also a prospective buyer, so is it my job to have the same shitty, disrespecting, arrogant, consdescending, self-righteous attitude that you do?
The Chief wrote:
Nor in any kind of religion, such as the religion of AGW!
That’s just what you tell yourself so that you can feel good about both your attitude and your point of view.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 11:29am PT
|
The Chief enacts Godwin's law!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!