Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The hypothesis of AGW can be described as follows:
The increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival.
I accept the basic science behind the first part of that theory but I take issue with the second. Now the second part is VERY important! Without it, we would not be even discussing this issue on a political forum and it would likely be an academic matter among climate scientists. The second part of that theory is the reason that there are tens of billions of dollars spent annually on the issue, why there is market for carbon trading and why the scientific process has been corrupted by politics, activism, dogma and greed.
AGW as a theory deals with the cause of an observed pattern of warming, NOT the effects of that warming. Why would anyone ever feel the need to attach some sort of doomsday prophecy to it? That's like saying the theory of evolution is 'life evolves according to its environment and one day turtles will turn into giant monsters that will eat your children'. No-- flat out, no. AGW isn't predicting anything, it's simply pointing out that humans are changing the climate. That's all.
All of those anti-AGW threads and all of those anti-AGW comments and you don't even know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
I can accept the basic theory that emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes the planet to warm or at least change the climate. How MUCH it changes and whether or not the effects will be catastrophic or barely noticeable (as they've been for the past 16 years) is a question that I don't believe our current understanding of the climate is able to answer.
The effects have been anything but 'barely noticeable'. All that has happened over the past 16 years is that the rate has slowed. It hasn't stopped. Maybe it hasn't had a noticeable effect on you personally, but that doesn't mean that billions of people elsewhere not to mention other species haven't been feeling it.
So as I've said many a time in these discussions, I don't have a problem with the basic science. My problem is with the alarmism, the dogma and the attacks on skepticism.
Skepticism is attacked because being skeptical of AGW is like being skeptical of gravity or evolution. But then, I have no idea if you're talking about your warped understanding of the theory or a normal person's understanding of the theory, so I can't really comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
If YOU were intellectually honest, you would realize that we aren't discussing the academic issue of whether or not man emitting Co2 warms the planet, we are discussing the claim that this dynamic will lead to the planet warming up so fast that it threatens human survival in the near term unless we act fast and pay more taxes.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would know it's not all about human survival. It's also about the survival of the billions of other life forms on this planet, as well as things that you take for granted like political stability, the economy, war, agriculture and everything else that is connected to prosperity.
Humans will probably survive AGW because we have the means to do so (albeit with a lower quality of life), but there are other creatures living on this planet who do not have the means. On top of this, you need to understand that life doesn't exist in a vacuum and part of living in an ecosystem means that when one species goes extinct, the species that depend on it to survive are now in danger of going extinct. Ordinarily, the normal, slow rate of extinctions under more natural climate change would allow that predator to adapt and simply consume a different life form... but in the case of AGW, the rate of change is too rapid for the animal to adapt so it goes extinct too. Of course, some animals will adapt but others are bound to die off or just eat each other if we keep pushing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
So yeah.. when the planet's warming slows for sixteen years, I am not saying that carbon dioxide no longer causes a greenhouse effect, I am saying that we need to re examine this notion that man's emissions of it will lead to our imminent demise.
In case you missed it, AGW isn't defined as such. Don't act like everyone who believes in AGW is being irrational or thinks the Earth is going to turn into Venus or whatever. I'm not sure where you draw the line between alarmism and a reasonable estimate of the effects on humans, so again, I can't really comment. Maybe you don't think droughts in Africa are a big deal? Maybe you don't give a **** about the ice caps melting (not sea ice, don't bring up sea ice), coral dying, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
"The fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's giant climate assessment didn't offer any surprises, nor was it expected to since it combined the findings of three earlier reports released in the past 13 months."
"Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at the report's launch in Copenhagen. UN climate report offers stark warnings, hope - AOL.com
Yes, acting would be a good idea... so where in that statement does it talk about human survival? Nowhere does anyone say that it's going to be the end of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon
You said:Then when I asked what caused past examples of GREATER warming, you went off on some tangent about how multiple effects have the same cause. So why can't that be true of the "warming" we are witnessing now? Why is AGW the "simplest, best, most likely theory to explain why warming is occurring" now?
Why isn't AGW just another factor in your multiple causes having the same effect?
It IS another factor, that was my point. THIS warming is caused by humans. OTHER warmings were caused by other conditions. I listed them for you. Reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere, CO2 levels and solar energy levels.
They know that THIS instance of warming is caused by human activity. They have ruled out all other factors. They know that past instances of warming were NOT caused by humans, but it doesn't mean that warming is always natural. It doesn't mean that there is some perfectly timed cycle that we cannot influence. It doesn't mean that the climate is impervious to our actions. It doesn't mean God will save us. It doesn't mean that warming is no big deal or that we're powerless to change anything.
Your stance only makes sense if one presumes that science is being conducted in an impartial manner, devoid of any influence from politics, dogma, activism, greed or groupthink.
Hint: It isn't.
Your stance only makes sense if a scientific theory, subject to computer simulations and error prone predictions is on the same par of established fact as tangible things are.
Hint: It isn't.
Here is where influence from politics, dogma, activism, greed or group think comes into the debate....
AGW as a theory deals with the cause of an observed pattern of warming, NOT the effects of that warming. Why would anyone ever feel the need to attach some sort of doomsday prophecy to it? That's like saying the theory of evolution is 'life evolves according to its environment and one day turtles will turn into giant monsters that will eat your children'. No-- flat out, no. AGW isn't predicting anything, it's simply pointing out that humans are changing the climate. That's all.
All of those anti-AGW threads and all of those anti-AGW comments and you don't even know what you're talking about.
Utter HORSECRAP!
We wouldn't even be talking about the issue if there were not alarmism and doomsday predictions made about the EFFECTS of the warming. That's what drove the issue from a particular discipline of science into a political controversy, hence the fact that we are discussing this in the politics section and not the science section of City Data.
You are being disingenuous and obtuse, either because you don't know any better or because you can't admit that you are talking yourself into a corner and don't make any sense. We're not here to parse the exact scientific meaning of the term AGW, we are here because this has become an issue that has risen beyond academia and affects us all in one way or another. The Alarmists believe to a varying degree that we are in danger if we do not act and the skeptics largely believe that this is an utter waste of time, money and resources that could be put to better use, at least I do anyway.
Your stupid, snarky, irrelevant analogy about giant turtles aside, I can guarantee you that if AGW were NOT predicting anything, absolutely none of us would be here talking about it in the political section of city data or anywhere outside of a group of climate scientists around a water cooler in academia somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
They know that THIS instance of warming is caused by human activity. They have ruled out all other factors.
They do not know how much of it is caused by human activity, how bad it is and what the effects will be.
They can't account for the recent slowdown as none of the computer simulations or the 97% "consensus" predicted it. They have ruled out other factors because we can't get tens of billions of dollars in continued climate research grants and we can't trade carbon credits if they discover that it's caused by the sun or if we overestimated man's impact versus other factors.
You have to remember too that we are dealing with corrupted data that went into the research that you and your ilk hitch your wagon to as if it were the gospel truth. Climategate proved that. Climategate 2.0 expanded on it. Many scientists have admitted as much or called it out. The process is corrupt. As the programers say GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Your side never fails to point out that big oil pays for science that disproves AGW. What they fail to point out is that if science is corrupt and for sale, it's naive and stupid to think that only the skeptical scientists can be influenced or bought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
They know that past instances of warming were NOT caused by humans
Dr Timothy Ball, who has a degree in historical geography you accept as an expert.........Don't you ever check your sources before posting such nonsense? Tim Ball is a credential-fudging denialist crank. Tim Ball - RationalWiki
Dr Timothy Ball, who has a degree in historical geography you accept as an expert.........Don't you ever check your sources before posting such nonsense? Tim Ball is a credential-fudging denialist crank. Tim Ball - RationalWiki
Typical. Attack the source, completely ignore the message.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
