Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 9:51 AM
403 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, dwise1, Faith, frako, JonF, PaulK, Pressie, Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (11 members, 392 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,350 Year: 9,956/21,208 Month: 3,043/2,674 Week: 459/961 Day: 72/117 Hour: 6/13

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Human Induced Global warming is just another conjob for the ignorant.
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(5)
Message 1 of 65 (716092)
01-12-2014 11:32 AM


Over in the thread Two types of science in Message 69 marc9000 said "Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true."

That's another of those truly stupid ideas marketed by truly dishonest conmen to the truly incapable of critical thinking US conservative public.

The fact is that whether global warming is human induced or not is totally irrelevant and in fact the very BEST case scenario would be if global warming were solely human induced.

When a comment like "Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true." is introduced it is time to tune that source out. It is why "public opinion" should be excluded totally from science.

But why do I say that?

There are two questions to be answered first; "Is global warming happening.", and second, "Will there be consequences from global warming we must address?"

So far the preponderance of evidence shows the former is in fact happening and almost all projections show that there will be major consequences to address.

Since the answer to those two questions appears to be "Yes!", what possible actions can we take?

One is to try to reduce the factors that might be causing global warming and so let's look a what could be done in that endeavor.

Can we reduce the natural processes involved, volcanoes, solar cycles, position of the earth, the Milankovitch Cycles or other such natural processes?

Honestly, "Nope!"

So that only leaves those processes and practices that are human induced.

All we have to work with are the human induced processes and effect.

But wait, there is more.

The smaller the percentage of human induced global warming in relation to the combined natural and human contribution, the MORE we must reduce that human contribution if we are to have any effect.

Those interests marketing the snake-oil "Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true.", are simply trying to palm the pea, misdirect attention, con the rubes, fleece the sheep, pull the wool over all eyes.

It is a totally irrelevant tactic to avoid addressing what must be done.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-12-2014 11:38 AM jar has responded
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 12:02 PM jar has responded
 Message 14 by frako, posted 01-12-2014 3:50 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1785
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 65 (716094)
01-12-2014 11:36 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Human Induced Global warming is just another conjob for the ignorant. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 3 of 65 (716095)
01-12-2014 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-12-2014 11:32 AM


Is Global Warming Natural or Artificial?
I always thought that global warming was more human induced than not but I guess im wrong---and a bit ignorant. All I know is that it is reality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 11:32 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 11:42 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 4 of 65 (716096)
01-12-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-12-2014 11:38 AM


Re: Is Global Warming Natural or Artificial?
The only part that we can address though when it comes to slowing global warming is the human induced portion.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-12-2014 11:38 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 01-12-2014 11:46 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 5 of 65 (716097)
01-12-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
01-12-2014 11:42 AM


Re: Is Global Warming Natural or Artificial?
I always figured that the main argument that people have is whether governments should address the problems or whether private interest should address them(for profit, obviously).

I agree with you though that the evidence shows that we humans need to do whatever we can. It can only help our situation to address these issues sooner rather than later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 11:42 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 65 (716098)
01-12-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-12-2014 11:32 AM


The smaller the percentage of human induced global warming in relation to the combined natural and human contribution, the MORE we must reduce that human contribution if we are to have any effect.

That is correct, and that is also the problem.

Right now, we don't know the exact percentages from natural and human contributions.

It is very possible that no amount of reduction of human contributions will make any difference--after all, warming has been going on since the middle of the last ice age. If this is the case we should be spending our research money on figuring out what to do about the effects of the warming.

But before we spend huge sums of money on one fix or another, it would make sense to determine to what extent humans are contributing to the warming. Then we'll know which way to jump.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 11:32 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 12:36 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 01-14-2014 7:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 7 of 65 (716099)
01-12-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
01-12-2014 12:02 PM


Why?
But before we spend huge sums of money on one fix or another, it would make sense to determine to what extent humans are contributing to the warming.

Why?

Fix one or another is just another conjob.

We know many things we could do to reduce human induced contributions and so why not begin addressing those?

Why not do both?

We also need to address and debate the consequences and so any dicussion on how big human contributions are is just wasted effort.

Move on.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 12:02 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 01-12-2014 12:47 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 1:15 PM jar has responded
 Message 33 by Larni, posted 01-17-2014 11:33 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 8 of 65 (716100)
01-12-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
01-12-2014 12:36 PM


Re: Why?
some folks dont want government bureaucratic involvement since it will raise their taxes but they would be all for buying up the new beachfront property and investing money into the problem----the issue is whose money gets spent and how much of it....for some people at any rate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 12:36 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5652
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 65 (716104)
01-12-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
01-12-2014 12:36 PM


Re: Why?
We also need to address and debate the consequences and so any dicussion on how big human contributions are is just wasted effort.

Before we can effectively address and debate the consequences it might be wise to have a better understanding of the exact problem.

And if the contributions from humans are insignificant, and don't change anything, the money would be far better spent elsewhere.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 12:36 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 1:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 01-12-2014 3:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2014 4:12 PM Coyote has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 10 of 65 (716108)
01-12-2014 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
01-12-2014 1:15 PM


Re: Why?
Before we can effectively address and debate the consequences it might be wise to have a better understanding of the exact problem.

And if the contributions from humans are insignificant, and don't change anything, the money would be far better spent elsewhere.

Well we know it is not insignificant, we can measure the contribution and in much of the world even see it. In addition, it also is indicative of waste and faulty processes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 1:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2014 3:42 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5515
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 11 of 65 (716119)
01-12-2014 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
01-12-2014 1:15 PM


Re: Why?
Before we can effectively address and debate the consequences it might be wise to have a better understanding of the exact problem.

Damn! I really need that "jeer" button.

This is stupendously stupid reasoning. It must be that Randroid nonsense.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 1:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2014 3:48 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 12 of 65 (716120)
01-12-2014 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
01-12-2014 1:33 PM


Re: Why?
We know humans engage in activities that increase the things that increase the overall average temperature of the earth.

The question is whether we can convert to activities that can decrease the things that affect the overall ave temp.

People talk about how expensive it will be.

How expensive will it be to move everybody out of flood areas from rising seas, how expensive will it be to deal with the aftermath of more energetic storms? What will be the costs of altered climate patterns on crops and living areas?

Let's do something -- moving to higher ground seems simple, but then look at how much that entails.

Or do we say tough it out, let those who are not prepared to meet the changes die? That would probably make a serious dent in the overpopulation problem ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 1:33 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2014 4:03 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 13 of 65 (716121)
01-12-2014 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
01-12-2014 3:35 PM


Re: Why?
This is stupendously stupid reasoning. It must be that Randroid nonsense.

Sounds like Faux Noise ...

Damn! I really need that "jeer" button.

Make your own ... in this case ?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 01-12-2014 3:35 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2683
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 14 of 65 (716122)
01-12-2014 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
01-12-2014 11:32 AM


The cooperation's that dont want the people to believe in global warming because it may cut in to their profits spend trillions on media campaigns to discredit scientists. I say let them win let the world burn, if you cant beat them join them. Just remember to laugh in deniers faces when we are all ding of hunger or extreme weather phenomena.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 01-12-2014 11:32 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 15 of 65 (716123)
01-12-2014 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
01-12-2014 1:15 PM


Clear Problem
Before we can effectively address and debate the consequences it might be wise to have a better understanding of the exact problem.

I almost agree. What I don't agree with is "exact". We don't have to distinguish between human activity causing 50 % of the problem and our activity causing 35 or 65 %. Anywhere in that range makes us significant in my view. Others might say anywhere from 20 % upwards but I'm not going to fuss about the exact number.

I do agree we need to understand our contribution to the climate change that is underway as we type here.

So do we have any idea? As I understand the physics we know that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will increase the over all temperature of the earth. We can even produces some pretty sound calculations as to the amount. We also have a pretty good idea of how much our activities have added.

We are told by the IPCC that putting these together says that we are, indeed, a significant factor in the change of the earth's climate. There is enough information to know that we should start to take action (as much of the world is doing although probably too slowly).

What is much more difficult to determine is how serious the consequences will be. The speed with which we take action and the magnitude of the resources we commit should be based on the seriousness of the consequences. Which I think is implied by your comment.

So are the very conservative estimates of the IPCC are for a global catastrophe costing many trillions. That's my guess based on a meter or so rise in sea level in the next 85 years.

But there are less conservative values you could plug into the cost-risk equation too.

If CO2 levels keep climbing without mitigation then we know that we'll have a 200 foot rise in sea level. We just don't know how fast. We'd better figure that out really, really soon. If we don't want to commit too many resources to mitigation yet then we sure has hell should be committing lots to determining what the risks are.

My personal totally wild and crazy guess is that we are facing much larger change in a much shorter time than the consensus IPCC estimates give right now.

My brother lives about 2 meters above sea level. Lovely spot it is. A one meter rise would bring storm tides to his doorstep. I'm speculating that in about 10 to 15 years he will have to be out of there. There are tipping points hidden out there and they will bite us I'm afraid. Hopefully I am wrong as I so often am.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 1:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2014 4:24 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 01-12-2014 5:14 PM NosyNed has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017