• In total there are 18 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 18 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The religion of climate change

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

ant wrote:Missing variables?
Explanation for the murky variables and why their impact is not greater than Mankinds?

you know the globe has warmed before substantially, minus antthropogenic CO2, right?
I'd think a combination of natural and anthropogenic factors can cause an acceleration in warming.
but to say that it's all our doing? that's environmentalist sermon speak.
we simply lack a complete understanding of all the known and unknown variables.
Of course there are missing variables, and unanswered questions. But that doesn't mean the evidence isn't strong. Both these things are true at the same time, and the resulting complexity of this issue is difficult for people to parse.

It seems that people are uncomfortable dealing with uncertainties. Nothing about climate change is certain. But that doesn't mean we haven't passed the threshold where evidence is strong enough for us to take action. Now repeat that ten times, because it's the most important part.

There are layman alarmists who claim certainty, sure. And you can argue against them and their certainty. But the strength of their position is not due to their certainty, but rather it's due to the pragmatism of the scientists they appeal to. Arguments against the layman are often legitimate, but then you're missing the entire point. Check the consensus verbiage. Scientists agree that climate change is most likely caused by human factors.

It's presumptuous to think they aren't aware of the issues with the data, the missing variables, the shifted constants.

Appealing to a man like Freeman Dyson, who is a genius, is a fallacy. Not because he's a genius, of course, but because he's not a meteorologist. That is the criteria where an appeal to authority becomes a fallacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-reid/ ... 59170.html

You say we should cut emissions. I agree with Robert Tulip that we need to go a step further and remove CO2 from the air. Even if the rise is a natural occurrence, that doesn't mean it's good for us. In fact, all the evidence shows it to be bad for us.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/g ... sions.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-diox ... er-second/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ns-up.html

If global warming is not being driven primarily by human activity then virtually all our sciences are wrong. The foundation of the argument is the carbon cycle on the surface of the earth. All living things are carbon sinks--they store carbon. When the foliage that now forms our coal (hence the term "fossil fuel") was buried in the earth, all the carbon contained in that foliage went with it. That was a LOT of carbon. Since then, life and the planet have adjusted without that carbon. The reason exhaling CO2 doesn't increase global warming is because that carbon is already part of the carbon cycle so it doesn't contribute to greenhouse gases. But when we dig up coal and other fossil fuels and burn them, we release all that carbon that was long ago taken out of the carbon cycle. Because there is so much of it, it goes into the atmosphere but that's all it does. Sure some goes into the oceans and all that but not most of it. This carbon has nowhere else to go so it hangs around and accumulates. Now, this is a simplified explanation but that is it in a nutshell.

The idea that this is not a major contributor to global warming is frankly hard to believe. It would mean that even basic findings of science are wrong. Chemistry, biology, meteorology, climatology, geology, physics, oceanography, the basic principles of thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow--all wrong. And since some people believe this to be the case and claim they can even prove it, why hasn't science incorporated their findings accordingly? Just stubborn pride? It's because the earth is provably getting warmer and that it has been provably linked to human activity and we should be properly shocked were this not the case considering how much of this antediluvian carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere every year.

Only people who know they are wrong and have no evidence to support their claims would then seek to turn this into a political debate. They would have no reason otherwise.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

The above post is more about carbon emissions, mixed with emotive language.
It's the same old emotional environmentalist religious rhetoric that doesn't even attempt to discuss any of what I've outlined.

I don't blame you.
you're simply bandwagonning here like everybody else.

thanks
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

Of course there are missing variables, and unanswered questions. But that doesn't mean the evidence isn't strong. Both these things are true at the same time, and the resulting complexity of this issue is difficult for people to parse.



Those variables and the amount they contribute to climate change would most assuredly impact conclusions that are drawn WITHOUT them.
WITHOUT QUESTION.
Ask Freemon Dyson.

Your fallacy is argument ad populum.
you've said so yourself - you are going with the majority here. And you don't understand half of what's missing.
guess what - neither do scientists.

The complexity of the issue to too complex for you to be anything else but "religious" about it.
Last edited by ant on Fri May 15, 2015 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

The idea that this is not a major contributor to global warming is frankly hard to believe. It would mean that even basic findings of science are wrong
non sequitur.
it means no such thing.
what it means is that we are MISSING relevant data.
effing DUH!

it may be a contributor, that's for sure.
to what extent, and how it measures up against natural occurrences we are yet to be clear on is data that is yet to be considered.

Meanwhile people like you go from "it's caused by man" to "man is a contributor" all in the same breath.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

ant wrote:
The idea that this is not a major contributor to global warming is frankly hard to believe. It would mean that even basic findings of science are wrong
non sequitur.
it means no such thing.
what it means is that we are MISSING relevant data.
effing DUH!
Well, now, stand back everybody! The Great Mr. Ant is going to tell us all which relevant scientific data are missing since he claims he knows this to be the case. We're waiting, great teacher, please instruct us:



it may be a contributor, that's for sure.
Too late to back pedal. You already said it: the relevant data are missing. So tell us what the relevant data is. We're still waiting:


to what extent, and how it measures up against natural occurrences we are yet to be clear on is data that is yet to be considered.
I'm, going to make it easy for you, Mr. Ant. Global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Now--disprove it:

And just to show you I'm not just shooting from the hip:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... man-caused
Meanwhile people like you go from "it's caused by man" to "man is a contributor" all in the same breath.
Oh, that's what it is!!! For a second there I thought it was you who started a thread calling climate change a religion. Now you're saying human activity IS a contributor ("it may be a contributor, that's for sure")
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

Too late to back pedal. You already said it: the relevant data are missing. So tell us what the relevant data is. We're still waiting:
If you'd get off your pulpit for a second and read my post wherein I attempted (as a layman) to begin that conversation, maybe you'd not have to ask that question.
But you have to largely ignore what I've asked because you don't really know shit about this entire issue.


I'm, going to make it easy for you, Mr. Ant. Global warming is caused primarily by human activity. Now--disprove it
:

Prove a negative?
You actually dont start off trying to disprove something, crazyman.



The rest of your post is psychopathic religious fervor garbage.

Thanks, Mr. Grand Dragon of Climate Change (and other things)
Last edited by ant on Fri May 15, 2015 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

What's telling here is that DB Roy, despite my being in favor of cutting emissions, is interacting with me as if I'm a global warming denialist.

These religious zealots give themselves away all the time. No matter which side of the fence they graze.

:roll: :coco:
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

ant wrote:Those variables and the amount they contribute to climate change would most assuredly impact conclusions that are drawn WITHOUT them.
WITHOUT QUESTION.
Ask Freemon Dyson.
Just as variables in the path the Earth takes around the Sun change conclusions drawn about the length of our year.

Again, you're missing the point. It's not that the variables wouldn't change conclusions, it's that they wouldn't change the conclusions so much that we're wrong. There are too many parallel indicators and too much evidence that gets us close to our current conclusion.

You seem to be unable to deal with the concept of uncertainty.
ant wrote:Your fallacy is argument ad populum.
you've said so yourself - you are going with the majority here. And you don't understand half of what's missing.
guess what - neither do scientists.
It's only a fallacy if an appeal to consensus is the only appeal I make. I do understand the data and evidence, enough to form a conclusion. The things I listed in my previous post. Check them out, google them, and look at the evidence behind them.
ant wrote: non sequitur.
it means no such thing.
what it means is that we are MISSING relevant data.
We are also missing relevant data about how the Earth moves around the sun. We have enough data to form a conclusion. If you have an alternative conclusion, it's up to you to show the missing relevant data that supports your conclusion. This isn't proving a negative, it's comparing competing hypotheses. What is your hypothesis?
ant wrote:What's telling here is that DB Roy, despite my being in favor of cutting emissions, is interacting with me as if I'm a global warming denialist.
How are you not a denialist if you're repeating denialist arguments?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: The religion of climate change

Unread post

Recently I heard a discussion of molten salt nuclear reactors being touted by some as the great 'green' hope for drastically reducing carbon emissions.
It's a strange story as originally it was hatched during the cold war, ostensibly to try produce flying equivalents of nuclear submarines.
Whether molten salt reactors are a meaningful solution I'm not sure,and there is some scepticism in some quarters about this technology.
Apparently the U.S. is getting involved in assisting China to produce these. China is choked with industrial pollution.
Anyway here's the story about this. http://www.fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-c ... r-reactor/
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”