EvC Forum: An Inconvenient Truth

Skip the first post. If you want to more carefully explain your position then go ahead, but let's stick to the data and conclusions from it, because that is all I care about.

We're not even going to talk about the data until you're able to offer an explanation for the behavior I'm about to detail. Until you have a meaningful response to this, we're not going to talk about the data or anything else. I'll present the two other posts I agreed to post, but until you're able to explain your infuriating and disingenuous distortions, there's nothing else for us to talk about. I'm deeply, deeply tired of presenting supported positions and then finding myself accused of failing to defend assertions that I didn't make. I'm fucking sick of it.

Let me make it absolutely clear. My position is in no way contentious:

1) Human industrial activity produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases in amounts far beyond any other natural process, and far beyond the environment's capacity to abate it. The result is an accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere. CO2 levels, at this point, are higher than has ever been observed in any relevant period of time (they are believed to have been higher in the Cretaceous period), and are continuing to rise. These elevated levels are almost entirely the result of human activity, either through direct emission in the case of CO2, or as an indirect effect, such as water vapor.

2) Greenhouse gases like CO2 are known to be a cause of elevated atmospheric temperature. This conclusion is simple physics, and is borne out by both observations of current climates and laboratory experiments involving these gases.

3) Elevated atmospheric temperatures can be expected to have certain effects which can be expected to have serious economic consequences for human civilizations. Two that I have mentioned would be the inundation of several low-lying coastal cities as ocean levels rise above their historic maximums, and famines as crucial agricultural land experiences a drastic decline in precipitation. Perhaps defenses against these threats will be erected in time; I sincerely hope that they do. But if nothing is done the consequences will, most likely, be severe indeed - much as the consequences of other inaction have been severe in the past (Katrina.)

True to form, Holmes begins the distortions in his very first reply:

As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating above what we see today, without man's interference.

Here's the graph he was referring to, along with it's caption:

quote:
This figure shows apparent correlations between historical CO2 and temperature records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 750,000 years. The data has been normalised so as to be presented on a common scale. Current CO2 concentrations (380 ppmv) would be 5.48 (3 s.f.) on this scale.

Holmes has tried to explain this gaff by asserting that he only referred to temperatures being above what we see today, but of course his original statement contradicts that interpretation. Holmes plainly stated that both CO2 and temperatures have been higher in the past 750k years than what we see today, and that's clearly only true for temperatures.

If there is a problem with CO2, it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole.

Implication: Holmes' opponents have asserted that the sky is burning.

Fact: No such assertion by RAZD, Schrafinator, myself, or anyone else appears in this thread.

That is to say, while we may be in for problems related to warm climates, and we can thank our influence in part for what we face, we are not looking at an apocalypse.

Implication: Holmes' opponents have asserted that global warming will spell the end of humanity.

Fact: No such assertion by RAZD, Schrafinator, myself, or anyone else appears in this thread.

You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past.

Implication: Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay.

Fact: I have never asserted such a thing. Obviously, if I didn't believe that CO2 levels could abate once our enormous output was reduced, I'd be selling real estate on Mars, because there would be no hope for the Earth. But it is true that we have no historical evidence for any natural process that could overtake unchecked human industrial activity, which is what Holmes appeared to be referring to.

If true, what does this tell you we should do? What science do we have showing what to do? Given that we are beyond CO2 levels seen before, how can you argue stopping such production will help unless you are appealing to those exact same angels of mercy I was.

Holmes repeats the same distortion.

While a "nice" gesture, and something I would not have walked away from as Bush did, Kyoto was not a solution or really the start of one.

Implication: Crashfrog promotes the Kyoto treaty, and faults Bush for his failure to implement it.

Fact: Ignorant of the details of Kyoto as I am, it would be irresponsible for me to offer an opinion on it. I have neither supported nor opposed the implementation of the Kyoto treaty.

??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot".

Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that the above graph does not have CO2 data on it.

Fact: Either Holmes's dishonestly has sunk to a new low or he's having memory issues. My comment was part of a context:

Crashfrog writes:

That's a pretty serious misrepresentation of the data of this graph. I'm going to assume that it was unintentional, although the caption of the graph should have made your error abundantly clear...

Holmes writes:

It was entirely unintentional and the product of trying to address two different issues in the same sentence, while writing and editing very quickly. My main point was to state that temps have fluctuated above what we see today. Unfortunately I merged that with a comment about CO2 fluctuations in general, which while not reaching levels we see today have had periods of great increase.

The sentence should have read something like: "As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating greatly without man's interference, and the latter to levels above what we see today."

Crashfrog writes:

I don't see how that sentence is any better supported. The graph you presented omits the last century or so of data (which is why the CO2 levels weren't on it). Could you present the temperature data that leads you to make this statement?

Holmes writes:

??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot".

As is obvious from context, when I said "the CO2 levels", I was referring to the CO2 levels we had just been discussing, the ones that aren't on the graph - the current ones. And the reason they're not on the graph is because the graph only has ice core data - not any temperature or CO2 data from the contemporary period. But Holmes omits that context with his selective quoting, opting instead to interpret my sentence in the most idiotic way possible.

What you see is that while Temp tends to vary with CO2 it is not a 1:1 correlation in change by any means.

Implication: Crashfrog has asserted a direct, 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

Fact: No such statement appears in any of my posts. Obviously, climate is more complicated than simply the influence of one gas on the atmosphere. CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases.

Don't confuse my lack of definitive, explosive rhetoric to pretend I am arguing that there is no connection and that there are no reasons to address the issue.

Implication: Crashfrog has used "definitive, explosive rhetoric".

Fact: Holmes has been unable to quote, specifically, exactly what language he felt fit that description.

Save New York? You think its going to be destroyed sometime soon?

Implication: Crashfrog has predicted the imminent destruction of New York.

Fact: No such statement appears in any of my posts.

If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected.

More selective quoting. Here's the context:

Holmes writes:

Crashfrog writes:

I'm hardly under an obligation to bend over backwards prove that something that has never been observed to occur in the past won't occur in the future. We know what the cause is; human industrialization. We know what the result is - abnormal warming. We're already seeing the effects - the warming is significantly different, much more prolonged, than the warming cycles experienced in the past.

Holmes writes:

If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected.

Obviously, that response is a non-sequiter. "Abnormal" in my statement above was obviously meant to refer to anthropogenic, nonnatural warming, not unexpected or unexplainable warming. But once again Holmes immediately leaps to the most idiotic interpretation, so that he can appear to correcting his opponent.

And I repeat to you, if what you assert is true... that we have reached levels never seen before and there is a limit beyond which no processes do work, then why are we to believe anything can be achieved by stopping emitting all the CO2 we want?

Implication: Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay.

Fact: I have never asserted such a thing. Again, the same distortion from Holmes, repeated.

You point to a data point, or a trend in data and conclude disastrous effects are necessary and irreversible... indeed beyond natural processes.

Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that we're doomed, there's no abating the CO2 even if we stop producing it.

Fact: I have never made such a claim. I have only asserted that there's absolutely no evidence that some unknown natural process will overtake human CO2 production. That assertion is absolutely true.

Again, we have your apocalyptic vision of all sorts of catastrophes (some patently conflicting) visited upon man as some sort of divine retribution, in ways that we can't deal with?

Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that global warming is unstoppable and that it is God's divine punishment against the sinful human race.

Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread. As a known atheist, it's ludicrous that I would be accused of such a statement.

Yeah, I don't see that NY is going to disappear within my lifetime (though NO did without global warming as a significant factor), and you don't agree with my suggested route of dealing with the issue we face.

Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that Katrina was caused by global warming.

Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread.

Implication: Crashfrog rejects the idea of cutting CO2 emissions and other efforts to reduce atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gases.

Fact: Until the next post, Holmes hasn't actually suggested that we do any of that. So what was avaliable for me to disagree with? I was merely disagreeing with the need for "restraint", which - as it was presented in the context of coming to conclusions that may or may not have sufficient data to justify them - I took to mean "restraint from coming to any conclusions." Obviously, I disagree with that, as well as the next reasonable implication - "restraint from any effort to change our policies or our emissions."

If Holmes had simply made it clearer that he meant "restraint from emitting so much greenhouse gas", obviously, I would have agreed with that.

Please, raise this discussion to a higher level.

Implication: Crashfrog is infantile.

Fact: It's Holmes' distortions that have led to the current state of the thread, as well as his own complete inability, apparently, to effectively say what he means. I'm willing to give him some credit for being careless with his language, but there's no excuse at all for the drastic misrepresentations he's been engaging in so far.

The media is filled with unrealistic scenarios stemming from this understanding, and you clearly have glommed on to the negative energy, if not the exact messages being pumped out. This is not an imminent crisis, and well considered approaches should be taken.

Implication: Crashfrog has advocated that we proceed immediately, absent any consideration of the issue.

Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread. Obviously, proceeding absent consideration is what got us in this mess in the first place. Why would I support more of the same?

Contrary to your scenario, it is unlikely coastal cities are suddenly going to be swamped in 10 years

Implication: Crashfrog has predicted the inundation of New York City within the next 10 years.

Fact: No such statement by myself appears anywhere in the thread.

If they adequately prepare themselves for natural events... which is NOT what happened in NO... then why would Katrina-size storms be any more than a large storm faced countless times over the centuries?

Implication: Crashfrog believes that no defense will be sufficient; New York is doomed.

Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread.

What you are arguing is that that problem will occur more frequently if people do not do Y, and will be faced with the problem less frequently if Y is done. But that is fallacious. Regardless of an increasing or decreasing potential (which is a contentious claim in and of itself) the people will still face that problem at some point and so SHOULD do X.

Specious reasoning to say the least. The conclusion of this argument doesn't support the contention that mine is false; Holmes is merely arguing against his own implication that reducing the frequency of bad outcome Y is as good as preventing it altogether.

I've never argued differently. In the long term, I'm not away of any danger of New York sinking beneath the sea, except in regards to the rise in ocean levels predicted by global warming. If there's a future scenario where New York sinks beneath the sea even without global warming, I've never heard it, so it wasn't something I was previously concerned about. Of course, Holmes gives no reason at all to believe this will ever be the case.

On the individual level we should be curbing unnecessary CO2 emmission through NOT doing things we may have normally done.

I don't know what personal definition of "restraint" Holmes is operating under, but it's not very effective at communicating his position on emissions. "Urging restraint", after all, is exactly what the petroleum companies and manufacturing lobby do - urge restraint from enacting tougher emissions standards. As a result, that's what we all assumed he meant.

Give me a scientifically sound explanation for how NY will be submerged, including mechanism and timeframe, and if not within the next 10 years, why technology will not be available to deal with that problem.

Implcation: Crashfrog believes no technology can save New York.

Fact: No such statement has been made by myself in this thread. I've never been to New York, but it seems like a great city, and I hope that actions are taken to preserve it. Obviously, I would not hope so if I thought no technology could save it.

You have made references to increased droughts, floods, and famines that are not capable of being addressed by proper organization.

The same repeated distortion that I believe that the consequences of global warming are beyond human response. Abundantly false, no such statement by myself appears in this thread.

By the way I didn't say you said NO had to do with CC, my point was that it hadn't so using it as an example for discussions about CC (to scare people) is not useful.

Implication: Holmes hasn't ever done exactly what I've shown him doing in this thread.

Wow, that's how the water cycle works? Water comes out of a faucet, down a drain and then back? That's amazing!

Obviously a distortion. I've never asserted that the water cycle is as simple as a facuet. Holmes is simply interpreting my remark - a sarcastic comeback about filling a bathtub to understand what it looks like when water levels rise - in the most idiotic way possible, again.

Don't go to this level of Bullshit. I've been linking to images and descriptions of images the entire time. The only thing I haven't done is place them as visible within post itself.

Which, of course, is exactly what I asserted he wasn't doing:

crashfrog writes:

But I will point out that, as easy as it is to provide a link to an image in a post, you've consistently refused to do so.

What's funny is that I have to argue this on the defensive

The funny thing is, Holmes - you don't have to. Any time you want to stop grappling with the strawmen and actually address your "opponents", you would find that we've already come to agreement with the vast majority of your points as you've clumsily put them forth. There's almost nothing that we disagree with. Once I was able to penetrate the deep conflusion most of your posts create, I see that the position you've elucidated is actually quite reasonable.

It's just a shame that you're not able to elucidate that position without resorting, time after time, to these blatant and dishonest distortions.

4 online now:	dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,922 Year: 4,179/9,624 Month: 1,050/974 Week: 9/368 Day: 9/11 Hour: 0/2