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.
There is a hint of desperation in your posts. Unable to present a concise argument for your position you resort to insults. It is getting to be amusing.
What is the effect of releasing gigatons of greenhouse gases that haven't seen the light of day for hundreds of millions years in a relatively short time period?
Physical climate-records began in the late-1800's. Which coincided with the end of the "Little ice-age". Since then, temperatures have risen at a relatively-steady pace(over 30-40 year timeframes/cycles). And also, sea-level rise has not accelerated(regardless of the claim that all the extra heat is being stored in the oceans).
There is no doubt that CO2 affects climate, but no one really knows how much it affects climate. Which is why all the climate-models are wrong.
I am not personally in favor of burning any oil at all. I hate the stuff. But we need to recognize that the battle lines in the climate-change debate, aren't factual, they are ideological. And that is true on both sides.
The science hasn't been right, and it still isn't right. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse-gas, and the fact that burning oil releases CO2, should make it obvious that humans have some effect on the climate. But no one actually knows how much of an effect it is.
Many global-warming alarmists use Venus as an example of what will happen to Earth if we don't stop burning oil. But is that true? Venus is 96.5% Carbon dioxide. Earth is .03% Carbon Dioxide. And CO2 levels have been several times higher before, nothing happened.
During the Eemian warm period, about 130,000 years ago, the Earth was much warmer than it is today, and humans lived there, and polar bears. And still, nothing happened.
There is no requirement or expectation that scientific truths will automatically be intuitive, look at a lot of the interactions in quantum mechanics - not only are many of them not intuitive, many times the interactions are completely counter intuitive.
I said that it was idiotic to compare evolution to climate-science.
The point of this thread, is to pretend that, if you believe in evolution, then you should believe in climate-science. If you don't believe in the climate-science, you are the equivalent of someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
The idea is that science is science, if you believe one, you should believe the other.
What I was trying to explain, is that climate-science requires an "appeal to authority", while evolution does not.
I said that it was idiotic to compare evolution to climate-science.
So why bring intuition into it, as demonstrated earlier science is often non or counter intuitive - it has no impact on the veracity of the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The point of this thread, is to pretend that, if you believe in evolution, then you should believe in climate-science. If you don't believe in the climate-science, you are the equivalent of someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
The idea is that science is science, if you believe one, you should believe the other.
What I was trying to explain, is that climate-science requires an "appeal to authority", while evolution does not.
Since you know about logical fallacies you should also be aware that some types of appeals to authority are fallacious and others are not. If you need clarification, there are good examples of valid and invalid usages in the wikki article you linked.
Since no man on earth is capable of being an expert in every single field of human knowledge, at some point we all have to make decisions based on others "authority". So it falls on the lay person to decide who to trust in a given situation. For me, the track record of science is much better than that of politicians and oil company executives. This may also be a product of my personal experiences since I work around scientists on a regular basis and have a decent idea of a lot of what goes on behind the scenes in scientific research.
The point of this thread, is to pretend that, if you believe in evolution, then you should believe in climate-science. If you don't believe in the climate-science, you are the equivalent of someone who doesn't believe in evolution.
I think the question has validity.
People who dismiss climate science out of hand are using thought processes very similar to creationists. In other words ... willfully ignorant.
Since no man on earth is capable of being an expert in every single field of human knowledge, at some point we all have to make decisions based on others "authority". So it falls on the lay person to decide who to trust in a given situation. For me, the track record of science is much better than that of politicians and oil company executives.
Redshadowz is right. We're not being asked to trust science; we're being asked to trust the media through which the putative science is filtered.
We're being asked to trust Ariete and her bogus 97% figure. We're being asked to trust the "scientists" who fabricated the 97% figure she repeated. We're being asked to trust the news media that lie to us constantly about everything else of real importance.
Redshadowz is right. We're not being asked to trust science; we're being asked to trust the media through which the putative science is filtered.
We're being asked to trust Ariete and her bogus 97% figure. We're being asked to trust the "scientists" who fabricated the 97% figure she repeated. We're being asked to trust the news media that lie to us constantly about everything else of real importance.
Correct, as a layperson you are most likely to get the "filtered" version through whatever 2nd hand source you use to do research.
This however, does not mean that the primary sources are not available, they are, just in many even most cases the primary sources are extremely technical and dry research papers that your average Joe is not going to have the education or patience to parse through. Just because the primary scientific literature on the topic is difficult to parse for laypeople, is not the same as just telling people to trust in something with no backing evidence.
The findings of the international panel on climate-change, are not intuitive, nor can you find evidence for their conclusions on your own. It requires a leap of faith. You have to believe that the scientists are honest and unbiased, without any ability to test it on your own.
I can confirm greenhouse theory on my own. I take two glass jars, each with a square of black cloth in the bottom and each with a thermometer. Into one jar I place a cube of dry ice. After the dry ice has vaporized I leave the jars in the sun for an hour. The dry ice jar, with a much higher CO2 level, has a significantly higher temperature. The black cloth is warmed by visible sunlight but radiates in infrared. The high CO2 prevents the infrared from escaping. Theory confirmed.
I can find evidence of global warming on my own. I simply view photographs of melting glaciers, seawater inundating Miami, photos of dead sea coral. I can view satellite photos of shrinking ice caps. I also remember, anecdotally, that today's weather patterns have shifted from what I experienced 30 years ago.
So, no, I don't have to put blind faith into what climate scientists say. I have enough personal verification to convince me they are right.
Physical climate-records began in the late-1800's. Which coincided with the end of the "Little ice-age". Since then, temperatures have risen at a relatively-steady pace(over 30-40 year timeframes/cycles). And also, sea-level rise has not accelerated(regardless of the claim that all the extra heat is being stored in the oceans).
Physical climate measures go back much further than the 1800s, you mean to say that human recorded data began in the 1800s.
Sea level rise has accelerated these last several decades according to the US NOAA: Is sea level rising?
Quote:
There is no doubt that CO2 affects climate, but no one really knows how much it affects climate. Which is why all the climate-models are wrong.
That's very simplistic. It seems pretty intuitive that man emitting gigatons of greenhouses (notice how I don't just focus on CO2) will impact climate in some way. The climate models continually get the details wrong but have continually shown land and sea temperature rising over 30-40 year time frames. It's not as if we are completely clueless about geology and our carbon cycle, among other important cycles that affect climate and our biome.
Quote:
I am not personally in favor of burning any oil at all. I hate the stuff. But we need to recognize that the battle lines in the climate-change debate, aren't factual, they are ideological. And that is true on both sides.
Ok?
Quote:
The science hasn't been right, and it still isn't right. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse-gas, and the fact that burning oil releases CO2, should make it obvious that humans have some effect on the climate. But no one actually knows how much of an effect it is.
That's some pretty vague and contradicting statements.
I agree with you that man's actions have an impact on climate and we don't know the exact details of the how bad and how long?
Quote:
Many global-warming alarmists use Venus as an example of what will happen to Earth if we don't stop burning oil. But is that true? Venus is 96.5% Carbon dioxide. Earth is .03% Carbon Dioxide. And CO2 levels have been several times higher before, nothing happened.
During the Eemian warm period, about 130,000 years ago, the Earth was much warmer than it is today, and humans lived there, and polar bears. And still, nothing happened.
But did humans have agricultural and civilizations based on around then present climate? No one is concerned about the survival of humans but are concerned about societal and economic stability that has been built around the climate of the last several hundred years.
Redshadowz is right. We're not being asked to trust science; we're being asked to trust the media through which the putative science is filtered.
We're being asked to trust Ariete and her bogus 97% figure. We're being asked to trust the "scientists" who fabricated the 97% figure she repeated. We're being asked to trust the news media that lie to us constantly about everything else of real importance.
What's stopping you and yours from going through the data?
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.
