Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 57 of 164 (668051)
07-16-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by foreveryoung
07-16-2012 12:22 PM


Does that mean CO2 did it? You cannot prove it.
Well, we know that the energy from the sun hasn't increased, because we can measure that using satellites outside the atmosphere. This means that by definition the increase in temperatures is because of a greenhouse effect --- no more energy is coming in, but more is being trapped as heat.
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's just physics, it's been known for well over a century.
And we know that CO2 levels are rising, that's a matter of direct measurement.
So we know we have a greenhouse effect, and we know that something is happening which must cause a greenhouse effect.
So in what sense can't we prove it? Yes we can. It's all fairly basic. It's like someone constantly stuffing himself with burgers and donuts and getting fatter and fatter --- the causal relationship is well understood. We know he's getting fatter, and we know he's consuming a lot of calories. How would we conjecture that the latter is not the cause of the former? Are we to suppose that a Stomach Fairy is magically removing the food from his stomach, preventing it from fattening him, while an Obesity Fairy is cursing him with weight gain, making him fatter?
Well, the same applies to CO2 and global warming. To deny the connection, we have to suppose that:
(1) Some entirely unknown process is preventing CO2 from acting as a greenhouse gas, something which physicists tell us is a physical inevitability, and
(2) A second entirely unknown process is causing the planet to undergo a greenhouse effect.
Yes, it is very religious in nature the way you guys are so enamored with the idea.
I'm also very enamored of the idea that two plus two is four. It takes more than amorous feelings to make a religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by foreveryoung, posted 07-16-2012 12:22 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 70 of 164 (668437)
07-21-2012 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by foreveryoung
07-21-2012 3:22 AM


So ... why is the known increase in known greenhouse gasses having no effect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by foreveryoung, posted 07-21-2012 3:22 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by foreveryoung, posted 07-21-2012 12:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 71 of 164 (668438)
07-21-2012 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by foreveryoung
07-21-2012 2:37 AM


Instead of a "spoof" and some vaguely comic verse, could we have some actual facts?
P.S: Lies about "climategate" and the meaning of the words "hide the decline" are not facts.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by foreveryoung, posted 07-21-2012 2:37 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 164 (668457)
07-21-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by foreveryoung
07-21-2012 12:18 PM


because carbon dioxide's ability to absorb longwave radiation peters out logarithmically. There is an upper limit to how much carbon dioxide can absorb. when you go beyond that limit, there is no added greenhouse effect.
I am slightly suspicious of this, because of course a logarithmic function doesn't have an upper limit.
Also it conflicts with my intuition, but then stuff sometimes does that.
Could I see some sources?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by foreveryoung, posted 07-21-2012 12:18 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by foreveryoung, posted 07-21-2012 12:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 84 of 164 (668484)
07-22-2012 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Lithodid-Man
07-22-2012 4:50 AM


Re: Again... try to understand
I think that this is the central point that is ignored in the climate change "debate". The denialists seem (at least to me) to be taking a position that if it can be shown that human activity is not a major contributing factor then we can ignore the consequences.
No, just that we can't do much about them, which would be fair enough. What should we be doing right now, if we can't help global warming? Moving to higher ground? Whereas if it is anthropogenic, then there is something we could do now.
Their last-ditch effort, then, is to try to argue that it's not anthropogenic and that therefore there's nothing we can do.
As Sir Humphrey Appleby explained, there are three stages of government inaction:
(1) There is no problem.
(2) Maybe there's a problem, but there's nothing we can do about it.
(3) Maybe there was something we could have done about it, but it's too late now.
The denialists are unwittingly or semi-wittingly or halfwittedly attempting to get us from stage 2 to stage 3. Being a bunch of right-wing loonies, their greatest fear is that the government might do something. Anything. Since global warming can only be tackled by government action, and, even worse, international government action, they need to deny that anything needs to be done, since the corollary of: "something should be done" is, in this particular case: "governments should do something".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-22-2012 4:50 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 85 of 164 (668485)
07-22-2012 5:57 AM


Some Thoughts On Reality Denial
In the case of AGW, right-wing loons are faced with these propositions: (a) all government action is bad (b) only government action can protect us from AGW (c) it would be good to protect us from AGW if it exists (d) the scientific evidence shows that AGW exists.
These propositions are incompatible. So what to do? They could deny (a), only then they'd have to abandon their ideology. They could deny (b), only that would be extremely difficult. They can hardly deny (c), since we don't want drought, famine, and floods. How about (d)? Well, if creationists have taught us anything, it's that with sufficient stupidity and cunning you can deny anything, no matter how incontrovertible. And AGW is nowhere near as incontrovertible as evolution, because hey, what is?
A similar phenomenon can be seen with their attitude towards homosexuality. Being Americans, they have at least somewhat assimilated the idea that you shouldn't discriminate against people for things that they can't help. Being halfwitted bigots (or "Christians" as they call it in their bizarre and inaccurate argot) they want to hate on gay people. How to square the circle? By denying all the evidence available to us, and insisting that "homosexuality is a choice".
A third example: they think that God wants abstinence-only sex education. On the other hand, they would agree with me in principle that it would be desirable for sex education to reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and STDs. How to square the circle? By maintaining that abstinence-only sex ed works.
Creationism is another example. They agree with me in principle that our children should be taught science in science class. They also think that children should be taught creationism. What to do? Insist, of course, that creationism is scientific, over the loud outcry of actual scientists saying: "no, no, it isn't"; or at the very least insist that evolution isn't scientific over the chorus of scientists explaining that it is.
Now, someone who really tries to construct a system of ethical principles tries to make a system that works under any given set of circumstances --- where by "works", in this context, I merely mean "is self-consistent": a working system of ethics will not tell us even that under some purely hypothetical set of circumstances the same thing is simultaneously right and wrong.
But there is another way. You can construct a system which would break down under certain circumstances, but also deny that these circumstances ever arise. And you can go on denying that even when we are living slap in the middle of that set of circumstances. Because it turns out that for certain people it is easier to deny the facts than it is to reverse one of their principles.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 164 (668488)
07-22-2012 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by frako
07-22-2012 5:57 AM


Re: Legal question
Probably not, or not in most cases.
It was possible to sue tobacco companies when (a) they sold tobacco (b) they had themselves accumulated evidence that smoking was harmful (c) they lied about this and concealed the evidence.
It would be an unconscionable act against free speech if you could sue someone just for being an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by frako, posted 07-22-2012 5:57 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by frako, posted 07-22-2012 6:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 90 of 164 (668491)
07-22-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by frako
07-22-2012 6:19 AM


Re: Legal question
Im not talking about the idiots who bought in to the whole global warming is a scam thing but the people who invented it, the guys who made documentaries using incomplete graphs and outdated data and made up data to support their claim there is no global warming and then went on a money making tour preaching this all over the world.
Are they insincere? I think many of them are asincere (a word I made up to parallel the distinction between immoral and amoral) but are they insincere?
In the end, I suppose that freedom of speech is good. But I would say: if it is not, then let us be wiped from the face of the Earth. Let us not merely suffer the inconveniences and tragedies attendant on global warming, let us become extinct if this is so. If the one quality that distinguishes us from the other animals is wasted on us, if it is harmful to us, if is is harmful to the whole Earth and to all species --- then let us die. For if so, we do not deserve to live.
We, alone, have the power of speech. We, alone, use this power to determine our political destiny. We are not compelled, like the ants, to have such-and-such a polity no matter what any ant says: even if the ant could think it, the ant could not say it. Nor are we naked mole-rats, nor bees. We have constructed the ultimate eusocial society on the basis that we can talk to one another. If that must be destroyed, then we must be destroyed, and we would deserve destruction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by frako, posted 07-22-2012 6:19 AM frako has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 164 (668492)
07-22-2012 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon
07-22-2012 6:51 AM


Re: Again... try to understand
I suppose you're right. But it depends on the circumstances. If the cause was sunspots, then I guess it would be hard for us to do anything about the sun. We might have a moral obligation to do whatever we could, but maybe we couldn't do anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 6:51 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 8:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 164 (668500)
07-22-2012 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jon
07-22-2012 8:14 AM


Re: Again... try to understand
I suppose there are just too many varieties of deniers to keep track of them all.
And I suppose that there is a common error that involves many of them. If they talk like that, then they are idiots, and we may ignore every stupid thing that they say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 8:14 AM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 132 of 164 (677801)
11-01-2012 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Panda
11-01-2012 6:52 AM


What other kinds of feedback do you think should be included?
Imaginary ones.
(Math joke.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Panda, posted 11-01-2012 6:52 AM Panda has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 137 of 164 (677821)
11-01-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 12:33 PM


"Circumstantial"
Why should I believe in anthropomorphic climate change? The only evidence for it is circumstantial.
Well, that was weird.
Of course any evidence about the cause of climate change is going to be circumstantial. What on earth would direct evidence be like? Are you waiting for an eyewitness to come forward and say: "I was there and I saw the human race shoot the climate in the head with a gun made of carbon dioxide"?
When the evidence for a hypothesis and for any counter-hypothesis must, by the very nature of the question, be circumstantial, no matter how right the hypothesis is, then it is not a serious objection to say that the evidence is all circumstantial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 12:33 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 145 of 164 (677835)
11-01-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 6:45 PM


Re: "Circumstantial"
What I mean is ...
Then you should have said so.
... that nobody can point to the evidence and show that every warming period was preceded by an increase in carbon dioxide.
WTF?
Why would anyone need to?
If we wish to prove that Fred Brown killed John Smith by stabbing him with a knife, it is not necessary to prove that every death was preceded by Fred Brown stabbing someone with a knife.
They also cannot show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the result of warmer ocean temperatures. Until someone can show there are no periods of increased carbon dioxide that are not accompanied by an increase in temperatures ...
If you think that you're producing the same fallacy as you did at the start of your post, you're wrong.
... all evidence is merely circumstantial.
Stop using that word until you're prepared to use it properly. Of course all the evidence is circumstantial. If someone could meet your nutty standards of proof, the evidence they used to do so would still be circumstantial.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 6:45 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 11-02-2012 1:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024