That are not equal.
For instance your one does not rely on real science or empirical observation
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Article: Climate change- What the experts say
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
For instance your one does not rely on real science or empirical observation
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
LOL, we've been doing that since the dawn of man..... Humans will not stand together in a global green effort. Wil just not happen.
Obviously weather changes over history. There's plenty of evidence to support that. Some desserts used to be covered in ice etc etc. This is something that we just have to deal with and if we can't...... so be it.
With regard to our own impact - we shall reap what we sow.
medicnick83
Paramedic
With all this stuff happening, I think we all have to come together and get really ready to help each other... becuase trust me on this... at the end of the day, we're only going to make it if we help each other.
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
Dream on dear. Good notion, just not realistic
That are not equal.
For instance your one does not rely on real science or empirical observation
I think you are missing something Wiz.
I think anyone who disputes the fact that the climate can change drastically over time is a moron. It can and has.
The issue with climate change is not that the climate is changing, it is that the principle cause of said change is man and its influence on said climate.
When looking at empirical data, it cannot prove what is man made and what isn't.
Lets say the average temperature over the cause of a decade is raised 1 degree, that is drastic but lets assume this is the case. How do we know that it was caused by man? I mean we know we have had increases in temperature in the past, so how does a thermometer or statistics tell us this time it is made made? Could it be that 80% of the temperature is caused by "naturally" occuring climate cycles and 20% by industrial man? What about 50/50 split?
We know for a FACT that we have had climate shifts in the past that are NOT a result of industrial man. We know for a FACT that the carbon in the atmosphere or whatever in the past has been significantly higher than it is now, the medieval warming period has been cited as evidence.
All we have is a theory that the current warming is principally influenced by modern man.
It order to prove this, you have to have a climate model that accurately predicts climate shifts WITHOUT the influence of man, I.E a model that demonstrates the natural cycle, close to 100% accurate.
Then you need a model that accurately demonstrate the EXACT influence of modern man.
Then you need to compare the 2 models to see the differences.
This is not possible, we do not have climate models that are even close to the accuracy we are talking about here, it is not possible for us to create a model that does not have man's influence at all, since we would be basing it on data we have obtained and will be continually obtaining as we continue measure the climate, however these models will have man's influence already in them. So we can only know a great deal of certainty, what IS happening now, but we can't know what man's influence is, not with an great deal of certainty as we cannot know what would've happened without us.
One example I can give that is a fact regarding atmosphere is that water places a part in regulating temperature. Basic high school geography. The more water there is, the more surface area you have to absorb heat, which in turn cools the atmosphere. So, if you warm the planet, melt a few glaciers and ice-caps, the sea level technically rises right? But then you have more water surface area, which in turn absorbs more heat, which in turn cools down the atmosphere. So you have a natural effect that helps to cool or regulate temperature.
No scientist I know would dispute this. What is in question is how this affects the earth. If we are indeed melting ice too quickly, will the extra water be enough to absorb the extra heat, and in essence, correct our influence on the climate?
I know it is pretty undisputed that the arctic ice cap is melting...apparently caused by global warming. Now common sense says if the earth as a whole is heating up, the ice caps will melt. So people who are advocates of man-made global warming say this is evidence to support that theory.
If we look at that in isolation, I would agree. But I would also expect the Antarctic ice caps to be melting as well. I mean we are talking global climate change, not arctic climate change. But it appears this is not the case.
So now you need to explain why the antarctic shelf is growing. The explanation is that CFC's and things have caused antarctica to grow, something along the lines of the effect on antarctica is localised and not related to global warming. Of course if thats the case, why aren't the effects of the arctic ice regarded as localised phenomena?
It seems to me, "empirical data" that supports global warming theory, is used as evidence to support it, and empirical evidence that contradicts the data, is very convienently explained away using other theories or are "unrelated" etc.
Statistics aren't everything and they certainly aren't proof.
The most important thing to remember regarding stats is not to confuse correlation with causation. Stats show the arctic is melting, but antarctica is growing. The stats themselves contradict both theories, so obviously one theory is wrong.
The problem is the stats cannot tell us which theory. One set of data supports said theory, another set contradicts it and vice-versa. Either the earth is heating up (Whether man-made or not) or it isn't.
Logically, one theory HAS to be right. They cannot both be wrong as they are mutually exclusive. The stats can tell us squat.
And as for the "science" of it all...well, I'm an auditor. The big thing about being one, and the reason why we exist, is to provide an "INDEPENDANT" assessment of company financials. The key is being independant. Someone who is independant, and has no vested interest, is automatically (In principle) more credible in their opinion.
We know for a fact there is HUGE money behind global warming, the governments stand to make a lot of money on carbon taxes etc. Those companies pushing "green" solutions stand to make a lot of money, thos scientists pushing global warming stand to lose HUGE grants if the theory is proven incorrect.
You've said yourself on more than one occasion, regarding the recent elections in the US for the house that the Republicans had big money behind their campaign. You are right, money talks. I'm asking you to stay consistant and consider the effect this has on the scientific community. It should, at the very least, allow one to question the motives of some, not all, but some scientists.
Are they in it for the truth, or are they in to have a job? It has to cross your mind, no matter what side you are on on the debate.
Last edited:
Luckily, human development has progressed thanks to people who have the courage to try new things.
Oh - and in spite of the people who claim we'll never progress...Yes - we do reap what we sow! Although, more often its grandchildren reaping what their grandparents sowed, which is a bit of a shame.
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
And look at the impact "human development" had on our surroundings. I still maintain that humans are the most cruel and selfish living organisms on this tiny, vulnerable planet. The negative impact of our actions is greater than the positive impact.
Money and energy is what makes this world turn and these two things are the influencing (determining) factors on world governments decisions. Soon water will be added to the list . . . IMHO, it's a done deal, we've had our innings so to speak
It's even more important not to disregard a combination of correlation and causation entirely due to nothing other than the mantra "correlation doesn't imply causation".
It would be an astounding coincidence if the quickest increase in global temperatures ever known didn't have anything to do with the quickest increase in industrialisation ever known.
Actually, the area of sea around Antarctica which is freezing is growing, but the icemass on the continent is dropping steadily.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
But I can see where this is going. Sigh. Climate sceptics are the new creationists.
Ekstasis
Honorary Master
+1
Since you went OT with that statement, allow me! The Bible actualy speaks of climate change - so we are not sceptic at all
Ronjay
Expert Member
Yip, its a heck of a debate. Problem is that while we debate whether we effect the weather the whole climate change problem is not going away. Debate the issue but I see no problem in taking precautions and working toward greener policies in the mean time. If it turns out that we are not responsible for climate change, then so be it. But if we are, then we would have done something about it instead of berrying our heads in the sand.
That are not equal.
For instance your one does not rely on real science or empirical observation
Nor does the science! (if it can be called one) .. its based on extrapolated fudge values that are created to suit a purpose
bekdik
Honorary Master
Wen it comes to floods we cannot ignore the damming and rerouting of rivers plus the clearing of land...
Last edited:
Actually, my statement had nothing to do with the Christian Bible. I'm just commenting on the similarities between climate change sceptics and creationists. They both reject science (unless, of course, the 'science' tells them something they already believe), they both use exceptions to prove rules (science can't explain this fossil? ALL science is therefore bunk! World getting warmer, you say? Then why such heavy snowfalls last week!), and they both try to claim that generally accepted views are part of a complex global conspiracy or "agenda" and are therefore false.But I think the saddest thing is that they are both being played by powerful individuals who need ignorance to prevail in order to protect their own investments.
Like Al Gore
I'm not disregarding anything, just pointing out the flaws in pointing to statistics.
As far the ice around antarctica, if the land is less and the sea ice is more, is there more or less ice in total? Surface scans can't tell us this.
The guy atributes the decrease in land ice to AGW, but the increase in sea ice is not. It conviniently has another explanation.
As for skeptics being the new "creationists", how can you promote "science" when being a skeptic and asking questions is discouraged? That is not science.
I've already posted an excerpt from a letter from a notable scientists tendering his resignation from a global scientific body due to the fact the bodt simply won't allow ANY discussion on climate change that questions the theory. Even when members of the body used the bodies policies to introduce the debate, they were shut down. How can that be called science? How can discouraging opinion and discussion be called science.
Hell most of the time a new theory comes out, it is the scientists job to do everything and anything in an attempt to disprove or discredit the theory, if successful the theory becomes disproven, if not, the theory is regarded as correct. That is how "science" works in the real world.
Yet if you are a skeptic, you don't get funding, you are called a nutter by the likes of people like you and any discussion on the topic is simply squashed.
If that is what the scientific world is about these days, then a signifcant portion of its credability is lost...
It doesn't matter what your opinion on AGW is, you should be encouraging skeptics to ask questions, encouraging people to try prove you wrong, and in doing so attempt to educate people and prove your detractors wrong and AGW correct.
But instead, we return to insults, the new "creationists" etc.
That is not science, that is just close-minded self-righteousness. It is a shame if that what science has become.
Last edited:
True. You need to back statistics up with reasonable scientific explanations.
Who said they're only doing surface scans? Oh right - you did... ;-)
That's how science works. Different things have different causes.
Oh, questioning is encouraged. Inane banter isn't. If you try to question the fact that iron plus oxygen equals rust and people discourage you from questioning it, they're doing you a favour.
I can also post a excerpt from a letter written by a notable scientist tendering his resignation from a global scientific body due to the fact that the body simply won't allow ANY discussion on evolution that questions the theory.
So what?
Right-ho. And as soon as a scientist comes up with an explanation for the comparatively lightning-fast increase in global temperatures which nicely mirrors the comparatively lightning-fast increase in industrialisation AND YET is completely unrelated to it, someone will listen to him.
That is how science works: you can only attack a solid theory if you have a better one. If you just want to cast uncertainty and doubt around, the world of politics is right through that door and straight down that mineshaft.
It isn't enough to be sceptical in the scientific world - you also have to bring a better alternative.
Admit it: you never gave the scientific world much credence anyway. ;-)
Oh, indeed.
Eh. The evidence for global warming (or climate change, or whatever new name you want to give it) is there and just as solid as the evidence in favour of evolution.
It's a time-saving device. You're never going to discover black holes if you waste your time dealing with sceptics claiming there isn't enough evidence for the theory that gravity is related to mass...
This one sounds more accurate!
Melting or icing has do with with temperature change, and not to do with temperature change at the same time. You don't think that thinking should be questioned.
Honestly, I have yet to see a single statistic or piece of evidence that proves man-made warming. Correlation isn't proof, and when stats exist that contradict the theory (Other temperature readings like the ones ignored by the IPCC or whatver), I think more questions should be asked and answered before trying to control everyones lives.
There is TONS of stats/evidence to support the theory...but evidence and proof are 2 different matters.... but thats not the issue I have. I have no real issue with the theory, I have a big issue with how we are attempting to respond to said theory.
I just wanted to give an example of how biased the "scientific" community can be on this issue. Why aren't questions welcome?
There are a number of explanations around, they are just disregarded/ignored.
One example which I looked at for 2 seconds, and no more, showed that ice on Mars was melting as well, so Mars is also enjoying an increase in global temperatures, we think. Which coincides with our increase in global temperature. Now, again we have correlation, this time one that suggests AGW is wrong....but well, it can't be the sun, Mars wobbles which causes global temperature shifts. So does the earth, just not as badly, and the earth wobble is not whats causing our current problem.
My argument is, I'm not commited. I am not convinced our climate change is principally man-made (99% man, 1% natural shift). I am convinced in principle man has an effect on the climate, but not convinced as to what degree that effect is. Again, we have had climate changes in the past, what if normal natural climate cycles, together with man has made the change in temperature happen quicker than normal.
What is the effect long term. As far as I understand it, warming leads to melting ice caps, which means more water, which absorbs more heat, which leads to cooling...perhaps even an ice-age (Wouldn't know about the ice age thing), but warming/industrialisation can melt ice, so there is a cyclical effect...and I honestly can't see how controlling peoples lives and taxing people and allowing a small minority to get filthy rich, which is what all these will do, I can't see how this is an effective solution.
But really I wanted to demonstrate, that way back when in the time of Galileo, the Church's view was mainstream, and anyone who questioned this was a nutter and a heretic. So it was religion that supressed people questioning the prevailing view.
Now it is science!
Which is why I have issues with your poorly chosen creationist insult. You are the one promoting AGW likes its friggin gospel and I am the one saying, hey, lets stop, ask some more questions before we do anything rash like, I don't know, completely and irrecoverably change the world economy by attempting to control it (Which has never worked in the past btw)
Yet apparently, I'm like the "creationist"...
The reality, is its the other way round.
Poorly chosen insult if I ever saw one bud.
There are plenty of alternatives floating around, but the evidence used supports all the theories (If it contradicted a theory in its entirety the theory is automatically rejected.) And being skeptical and asking question is step 1, hell the guy who came up with AGW had to walk away from the crowd, its not like the idea has been present since the beginning of time.
Nope, I just know for a fact that there is a lot of people who have a huge financial stake in this issue. That makes me pause before committing myself. The fact you haven't paused, shows you are perhaps a little naive. Maybe correct in the end, but naive still.
Ok whats your solution, you can't nullify our effect completely, but the prevailing solution is to postpone the inevitable and allow a small minority to get filthy rich whilst the rest get poorer (Since we are playing a zero-sum game when legislation is in play), and then when the drastic changes eventually happen, or the next ice-age comes around a few hundred years later...then what. The rich have the money and resources to survive and the rest of the plebs maybe don't.
Afterall, industrialisation is progress, you are halting progress bud. So no, it is LESS likely there will be tech/products available to help this problems in future, due to the increased costs of innovating and bringing solutions to the market as a direct result of the legislation we want to put in place. Hell, if the ice-age comes around, we'll be reversing legislation to ENCOURAGE heating won't we?
I'm sorry that I have issues with that.
I think the solution presented is
A) Short-sighted
B) Only a delay tactic as it just decreases our effect, not nullifies it. Hell Hitler probably had a greater impact on decreasing greenhouse gasses due to the amount of people that died in World War 2, but I don't think this is a good thing.
C) Halts prograss/industrialisation, which in turn means more expensive products/less products which HURTS the average person. So the average Joe is worse off financially.
D) Will make some people get extremely rich at the expense of the average joe.
E) Taxes go to the state, which is a giant beauocracy incapable of surpassing the efficiency of the market, how taxing people and giving the state MORE money is suppossed to be a solution is beyond me completely.
F) Imposes limits on the 3rd countries, preventing them from reaching mass industrialisation that created the first world countries.
G) If the problem is really as bad as it is made out to be, what would happen if a major industrial player gives the rest of the world the middle finger, like say China. Does the western world go to war against China to save the planet? (In this day and age, I feel its a valid point)
H) You can destroy generations now (Poorer families/higher costs of living) for the chance to save generations in future. But the real effects of the policies are uncertain , if they have any effect at all.
I) Increased taxes = higher costs of doing business = higher unemployement. In this day and age with Keynesian Macro economics taking over, again, market volatility etc and high unemployement pretty much everywhere (Relatively speaking), increasing taxes will hurt people by resulting in fewer jobs.
Thats just off the top of my head. So I don't care about your propoganda, just don't try to control the economy, impose laws, carbon taxes or whatever hairbrained solution is currently presented. It won't work.
Give a proper solution that doesn't result in tons of negative foreseen and unforeseen effects, and I'll listen. Until then, you can take your theory and shove it. I want nothing to do with you or you "world controlling" freaks.
Last edited:
Hell I just read another article that says industrialisation is perhaps not the big issue on man-made AGW, it is deforestation or rather the destruction of plants.
The theory goes that plants absorb CO2, less planets = more CO2 in the air which = warming. Fairly straight forward.
So the the scientist had a look at when major, and I'm talking major areas of plant life were destroyed for things such as farming and such, and if they recovered, and attempted to see what the effects were on CO2.
So for example, what was the effect on the black plague on CO2 levels. Well, since so many people died, forests grew back etc. more plants, less CO2. In fact the article in question laballed Mr Destroyer himself, as Gengis Khan the Green. He killed so many people it had an effect on CO2 levels.
So, if we have the choice between levelling a huge area so we can make millions of solar panels and put them there, or leveling a small area to mine and build a coal plant... which has the least effect on AGW?
I mean, we can cut emmisions tomorrow by banning industrial farming, but then to produce the same results we would probably need/use more farm land, which means less natural plants, which means, less CO2 absorbtion.
The question posed was that we could reduce heating by making better use or more efficient use of the land we have. Well that is what industrialisation does. Increased producitivity...
I think questions like these need to be answered.
The theory goes that plants absorb CO2, less planets = more CO2 in the air which = warming. Fairly straight forward.
So the the scientist had a look at when major, and I'm talking major areas of plant life were destroyed for things such as farming and such, and if they recovered, and attempted to see what the effects were on CO2.
So for example, what was the effect on the black plague on CO2 levels. Well, since so many people died, forests grew back etc. more plants, less CO2. In fact the article in question laballed Mr Destroyer himself, as Gengis Khan the Green. He killed so many people it had an effect on CO2 levels.
So, if we have the choice between levelling a huge area so we can make millions of solar panels and put them there, or leveling a small area to mine and build a coal plant... which has the least effect on AGW?
I mean, we can cut emmisions tomorrow by banning industrial farming, but then to produce the same results we would probably need/use more farm land, which means less natural plants, which means, less CO2 absorbtion.
The question posed was that we could reduce heating by making better use or more efficient use of the land we have. Well that is what industrialisation does. Increased producitivity...
I think questions like these need to be answered.
OzzieCapie
Expert Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,975
- Reaction score
- 3
2010 was marginally the hottest year (global averages) on record but for statistical purposes equal with 1998 and 2005.
The ten hottest years on record have been between 1998 and 2010.
The antarctic melting is at a record. Whether or not more sea on the perimeter of that is freezing is not relevant in balancing out this ice, because that is local weather conditions, the same as record european snow and ice in the same year as the hottest on record (2010).
Previous high temperatures in distant history were most likely to increases in CO2 which were not man made.
However the current increases in CO2 is man made whether it be industrialisation or deforestation and currently the temperatures are consistently at record levels.
If you want to argue cause/effect and wait until you have 100 yrs of this same data it would be plainly stupid.
The ten hottest years on record have been between 1998 and 2010.
The antarctic melting is at a record. Whether or not more sea on the perimeter of that is freezing is not relevant in balancing out this ice, because that is local weather conditions, the same as record european snow and ice in the same year as the hottest on record (2010).
Previous high temperatures in distant history were most likely to increases in CO2 which were not man made.
However the current increases in CO2 is man made whether it be industrialisation or deforestation and currently the temperatures are consistently at record levels.
If you want to argue cause/effect and wait until you have 100 yrs of this same data it would be plainly stupid.