Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"The Climate change threat is far more real than a military invasion"
"real" based on what? fraudulent data? unscupulous scientists pushing a political agenda to ensure continued funding?
9/11 was REAL
iran's ongoing attempts to develop nuclear weapons is REAL
noko's aggression is REAL
again, if we wait until we're invaded, it will be too late (i'm paraphrasing jfk)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Dude
Go breath the air in LA and you'll be in far worse danger than one in a million via terrorist attack.
Go look at the air that we humans have created in big cities around the world in 100 lousy years of driving cars and tell me we should be investing strenuously in lower emissions of everything.
Or would you just rather get yours and let the kids choke on it
PEace
Karl
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Why do you try to reason with climate change deniers and creationists. These people believe what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They don't use reason and logic, they have beliefs and will latch onto any scant evidence or controversy to support those beliefs.
|
|
Ray Olson
Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
|
|
" You wanna talk solution lets talk tariff, labor protection
and building clean American industry that is PROTECTED -
BY LAW."
^^^
count me IN on that one.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"Go look at the air that we humans have created in big cities around the world in 100 lousy years of driving cars and tell me we should be investing strenuously in lower emissions of everything.
Or would you just rather get yours and let the kids choke on it"
the straw man striketh again...i've never claimed we should do nothing; nor has anyone else on this thread
but guess what...america lowered its greenhouse emissions MORE THAN ANY NATION THAT ACTUALLY SIGNED ONTO KYOTO... we don't have to enact crippling legislation (i.e. cap and tax) to deal with pollution
but since you're so concerned about the kids, what about the monumental debt your preferred approach will leave behind? somebody has to pay for it, and we'll probably be dead before the bill comes due
"Why do you try to reason with climate change deniers and creationists. These people believe what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They don't use reason and logic, they have beliefs and will latch onto any scant evidence or controversy to support those beliefs."
oh the irony...fet, you cannot prove god doesn't exist, but i have 3000 emails that prove your evidence for climate change doesn't exist...and never existed...and that so-called "deniers" were persecuted specifically for "reason and logic"
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"The emails do not have anything in them at all regarding a global conspiracy to foist the idea of Global Warming on the world. They mostly address scientific issues, both technical and sociological, tightly focused on research issues. You can see in this thread that people who are passionate about an idea will use passionate language, so it is in science too."
ed, the "subset" proves some of the most highly touted (and certainly the most vocal) agw scientists willfully ignored legal freedom of information requests; made a concerted effort to stifle, blackball, and intimidate scientists whose research presented contrary findings; manipulated (one might say maliciously) the peer review process, thereby destroying the integrity of the most important step in the validation of scientific research; and admittedly threw out the raw data that is the basis of their entire research
granted, there's no proof of a "global conspiracy", but the research of these scientists is the basis of the ipcc report, which is being presented to the globe and used to form legislation that will have global consequences
of course, you might consider hiding and manipulating information to "research issues", but i will continue to believe in my naivete that not all scientists agree that such practices simply show their "passion"
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I would state a subargument of Ed's points this way.
1. We don't have the context of those emails, and we can't judge their significance without that context; and
2. Assuming that the scientists involved in the emails were actively trying to influence the scientific community by disparaging and/or withholding unfriendly information, much other independent research supports the global warming hypothesis.
I agree with both of the statements above, however, I think there's rather more to say. As to the first point, the lack of context can be supplied by those who claim to be misinterpreted. The lack of anyone supplying a mitigating context makes me suspect the quotes are just as damning as they appear.
As to the second point, the measurement of anthropogenic global climate change still leaves much to be desired. If, in fact, the database of the anthropogenic "hawks" is now unavailable, how can we consider their research and conclusions confirmed?
I am not a physical scientist, but I have a great deal of experience with statistical inferences from non-experimental data. Despite its basis in physics and chemistry, the climate change models all deal with non-experimental data, because we have no "control" Earth to compare with the current, human-populated, one.
The fact that the inferences we can draw about the quantity of anthropogenic effects on climate change are quite uncertain, and because the proposed "solutions" have such high cost, people's skepticism of those "solutions" (such as Australia's rejection of "cap and trade" yesterday) do not represent an irrational reaction.
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Whether climate change is caused by man or not, it looks like Sea Level is going to rise within 100 years and hose some of the world's biggest cities.
What do you propose we do about that? Should we start to move the cities now?
Here's the thing, those who propose this sort of head-in-the-sand approach to climate change are obviously in the "denial" camp. They aren't asking for more money for other independent research, or money to address mitigating the results of climate change that's unavoidable. They just want to pretend we can fart in the bathroom and it won't stink
Peace
Karl
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Karl,
What we should do depends on how confident we are that we can change the rising sea levels by changing carbon emissions. If we can do that, it's probably cheaper than moving the cities, although possibly not as cheap as other mitigation measures such as dikes and sea walls. If we can't, we incur all the other costs of mitigation, because we can't stop the rise. That, in fact, is why the confidence levels of the statistics of fit matter so much.
Incidentally, I'm not so sure you aren't exaggerating the extent of the damage from a rising ocean level. That's happened continually, and somehow the cities survive.
John
|
|
pdx_climber
Sport climber
portland,or
|
|
its not the emails so much as the fortran source code showed where the model was manipulated to get a desired result. Fully commented.
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/global-warming-exposed-un-funded-fraud
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
"Why do you try to reason with climate change deniers and creationists. These people believe what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They don't use reason and logic, they have beliefs and will latch onto any scant evidence or controversy to support those beliefs."
oh the irony...fet, you cannot prove god doesn't exist, but i have 3000 emails that prove your evidence for climate change doesn't exist...and never existed...and that so-called "deniers" were persecuted specifically for "reason and logic"
Of course you can't prove God doesn't exist, but I mentioned creationism, but of course you argue against something else. So typical of right wingers. e.g. Instead of arguing against a public option, you argue against a govt. takeover of health care, much easier to argue against some extreme position that doesn't exist, too bad it's so dishonest.
3000 emails that prove the climate change doesn't exist? Or 3000 emails that show a subset of the scientists were not honest? So again you argue against something else. Attack the few dishonest scientists on the side of climate change rather than debate the overwhelming amount of solid evidence.
As mentioned believe what you want to believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary if you want to feel comfortable in your delusions. I'd rather live a life of reason and honesty.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
If we end up with all the possible negative effects of climate change (rising sea levels, crop failures, disease, etc.) do you think the right wingers will admit they were wrong? Or will they come up with some way to justify their positions were right all along? Gee, I wonder...
If we did pass cap and trade and it had a significant negative impact on the economy we could just reverse it with further legislation of course.
Perhaps the Repulicans don't want cap and trade because it's a market based system, since they really are for the opposite of many of their stated positions, like fiscal responsibility.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The Fet wrote: "If we did pass cap and trade and it had a significant negative impact on the economy we could just reverse it with further legislation of course."
That seems to imply a rather cavalier attitude toward those whose lives are devastated in the meantime.
Understand, I'm not saying that if anthropogenic global warming is the driving force of permanent climate change, we should ignore it. I'm simply saying that we also cannot ignore the potentially economically devastating effects of all potential actions, including both forced reduction of carbon emissions, and a lack thereof.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
That seems to imply a rather cavalier attitude toward those whose lives are devastated in the meantime.
Understand, I'm not saying that if anthropogenic global warming is the driving force of permanent climate change, we should ignore it. I'm simply saying that we also cannot ignore the potentially economically devastating effects of all potential actions, including both forced reduction of carbon emissions, and a lack thereof.
I don't think people's energy bills possibly going up 10-20% is going to devastate too many people's lives. A lot of people could easily cut their consumption by the same amount and break even.
But some of the effects of climate change could devastate peoples lives. There are whole island nations that may disappear and these people will become refugees.
No one except a few crazy enviro-nazis says we should ignore economic consequences. Most people who want to protect the enviroment understand there has to be a balance, and also it may be better economicaly to protect the environment now than deal with much more expensive consequences later.
|
|
Ray Olson
Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
|
|
thread drift:
corniss chopper, I will level with you, I am a bona-fide retard and a hard
headed zealot in my grass-roots belief that for some kinds of stuff at a
certain volume, we can manufacture in a clean sustainable way in the US.
Enough to help toward a more stable economy, and enough jobs to help
reduce crime etc.
and if it takes regs (not tarrifs, you got me) to keep future manufacturers
from screwing the american public in the long term so they can get rich in
the short term, then I am reluactantly throwing in with that idea. Not that
it means jacksh*t - am just a hard headed fool, and we both know it :-)
end drift
*
Ed, sorry of this post detracts from the awesome data you posted, not my intention.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
I'm not sure you even need a climate scientist to tell you that the rising CO2 level in the atmosphere is going to have major consequences, eventually.
A different tack is from the folks who ask: Given the amount of money that would be invested in trying to mitigate climate change, with hard-to-predict outcomes, would it be better to use the money otherwise, by providing food, water, and medicine to the already disadvantaged on the planet?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I'm always reluctant to disagree with you, Ed, but the climate models are, in fact, statistical inferences. Consider a physical model such as Newtonian mechanics. If we don't have relativity complications, it can predict very precisely the relationships between mass, force, velocity, position, time, etc. When we discovered discrepancies between our obsevations and the predictions of Newtonian mechanics, relativity again provided not only an elegant explanation, but an exceedingly accurate one that took no statistical inference to determine. Einstein didn't run regressions to determine the parameters of his equations.
Climate change models, on the other hand, are attempting to predict the outcome of a chaotic system, and that "fine tuning" to which you refer most certainly requires statistical methods to estimate the values of coefficients in the climate prediciton equations. The significance of this comes into play in estimating statistics of fit. Most climate change models with which I'm familiar do an excellent job of predicting the past, but a less excellent job of predicting the future. We estimate the statistics of fit (R squared, t values of coefficients, etc.) from how well the model predicts the past. This overstates the true accuracy of the models.
The earliest technical explanation of this I know comes in Specification Searches by Ed Leamer (Wiley, 1978). Essentially, when we are using data to try to specify the parameters of a model (for example, just what factors cause climate phenomena) using nonexperimental data, the traditional methods of calculating statistics of fit overstate that fit because they overstate the true degrees of freedom in the statistical estimators. They do this because we do not know all of the parameters that make up the real system, and some of the degrees of freedom should properly be "used up" to account for that lack of certainty.
Having sid that, I've found the Realclimate site exceedingly helpful, although not entirely free from non-objectivity. I, too, highly recommend it for those with more interest in this subject.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!