In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[dartay]

Originally Posted by ryberg

About what other scientific claims can it be said that a group of thousands of international researchers were unanimous with a 90-99% degree of certainty? Maybe that the earth is a sphere, or that evolution, not creationism, is on target in terms of explaining natural biology, or that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.. perhaps that the moon orbits around the earth...

But already I find that this is precisely where I came in, so perhaps it's a good time to resume avoiding these discussions, again.

Steve

Steve,

The mistake you're making is that you somehow link a group of scientists who say nothing that isn't self evident with 90-99% certainty. They linked man made pollution to climate change? Wow what a stretch. Of course man has a part in climate change, I'll go on record with that as a 100% certainty. The question is really ....by how much? Is it 1% or 90% of the problem? No one is denying that temperatures have increased, or that sea level is rising......they have been for 1000s of years.

The answer to the problem is simple. Show me empiracle evidence that says X amount of CO2 = X amount of climate change. This is where the IPCC falls apart. Feet are shuffled, "Denier" is cried, but at the end of the day there is no direct evidence on the amount of impact. The hook, line and sinker crowd starts to try and browbeat anyone who urges caution. Any scientist who disagrees is labeled rouge. False analogies are made between simple immigration problems and complex environmental systems.

Of course pollution is bad. But how bad? Do we treat it with changing a few bulbs or nuking the oil fields of the middle east?

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The whole basis of the science is based on computer models. Ever seen (I know you have) the computer models for a hurricane? Anything over 48 hours, and they are all over the place. Now, take that and multiply it by thousands (if not more) and make sure to add a bunch of unknowns into the equation. You going to bet the farm?

Apples and pears: a computer model for something so localised that occurs over a few days and is very fast moving can't be used to discredit another model for something which is global, of very slow increment (but nonetheless steady) and will last for thousands of years. The fact that there are thousands of contributing factors all going in the same direction will only make it more cohesive, not less: strength in numbers.
But, then again you already knew that...

[dartay]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Apples and pears: a computer model for something so localised that occurs over a few days and is very fast moving can't be used to discredit another model for something which is global, of very slow increment (but nonetheless steady) and will last for thousands of years. The fact that there are thousands of contributing factors all going in the same direction will only make it more cohesive, not less: strength in numbers.
But, then again you already knew that...

A pre-ordained outcome and a given limited set of inputs and I can make any model do what you ask. It's called fitting.

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Apples and pears: a computer model for something so localised that occurs over a few days and is very fast moving can't be used to discredit another model for something which is global, of very slow increment (but nonetheless steady) and will last for thousands of years.
But, then again you already knew that...

Attempting to compare the complexity of a hurricane to global warming?

Must be a joke and I missed it because its pretty obvious that one is infinately more complicated than the other....I'll let you try to figure out which is...

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by dartay

A pre-ordained outcome and a given limited set of inputs and I can make any model do what you ask. It's called fitting.

So, you're saying that cientists studying a natural phenomenon have a political agenda but governments denying it to protect corporations and economic interests don't?!

What would be the scientists' political aims? What would they gain by hurting themselves financially (because that would be the consequence of the measures they propose to contain global warming)?

Please tell me who has anything to gain from global warming.

[PlayadelSoul]

Steve, as is common in these debates, you ignore the fact that temperatures have always changed. You try to include the MANMADE part as a given, as if without man, the temps would stay the same. So, some scientist sees an iceberg melt and claims that is evidence of MANMADE global warming? How ridiculous is that?

Then, you try to claim that rising seas will lead to the elimination of entire cities and communities will be washed into the sea. Are you expecting tsunamis? No time to prepare for a rising tide? What if 2 degrees warmer temps leads to higher food production? That is very likely. More plant life, as well. You have no idea what the ideal mean temperature is, but you want to make sure to avoid going up (as if man can actually control that). What kind of logic is that?

Then, to top things off, Jacko goes with this

And "bet the farm"? Well if you mean to move along more quickly the development of better technological solutions to more quickly bring alternative energy sources on line and to much more quickly improve conservation solutions so we can all save money as the price of energy rises? Well...yes, I'll bet some money on that...I don't think we have to put the whole farm up for sale to move along a bit more quickly.

which was my point about 1000 posts ago. You don't have to claim the world is melting in order to get people to conserve. Its all about money, baby.

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Attempting to compare the complexity of a hurricane to global warming?

Must be a joke and I missed it because its pretty obvious that one is infinately more complicated than the other....I'll let you try to figure out which is...

An ephemeral, temporary phenomenon is more complicated than the global warming that will bring about (has brought/is bringing about) a plethora of such ephemeral/temporary phenomenons... and I'm the one who made a joke!

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Apples and pears: a computer model for something so localised that occurs over a few days and is very fast moving can't be used to discredit another model for something which is global, of very slow increment (but nonetheless steady) and will last for thousands of years. The fact that there are thousands of contributing factors all going in the same direction will only make it more cohesive, not less: strength in numbers.
But, then again you already knew that...

A computer model with 100 variables is more likely to be correct than one with 100,000 variables. If you can't trust the one with 100, you going to place a large wager on the other? If so, we should get together and play poker some day.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

So, you're saying that cientists studying a natural phenomenon have a political agenda but governments denying it to protect corporations and economic interests don't?!

What would be the scientists' political aims? What would they gain by hurting themselves financially (because that would be the consequence of the measures they propose to contain global warming)?

Please tell me who has anything to gain from global warming.

Climatologists. Ever heard of one before global warming? Ever see one on TV or quoted by a President?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Steve, as is common in these debates, you ignore the fact that temperatures have always changed. You try to include the MANMADE part as a given, as if without man, the temps would stay the same. So, some scientist sees an iceberg melt and claims that is evidence of MANMADE global warming? How ridiculous is that?

Then, you try to claim that rising seas will lead to the elimination of entire cities and communities will be washed into the sea. Are you expecting tsunamis? No time to prepare for a rising tide? What if 2 degrees warmer temps leads to higher food production? That is very likely. More plant life, as well. You have no idea what the ideal mean temperature is, but you want to make sure to avoid going up (as if man can actually control that). What kind of logic is that?

Then, to top things off, Jacko goes with this


which was my point about 1000 posts ago. You don't have to claim the world is melting in order to get people to conserve. Its all about money, baby.

You should be more in touch with what is happening in the green movement in say the hospitality industry in the United States (finally....Germany for instance has been doing much more for a long time now)...but actually it is starting to happen everywhere...green building, huge push on conservation with better technological solutions etc.. Its truly amazing...ya think this is happening just because we know we should conserve energy more? Guess again why this amazing change is starting to happen......

...\...no....guess again.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Climatologists. Ever heard of one before global warming? Ever see one on TV or quoted by a President?

There you go...that sure proves your point!

(tell me your point again, please?)

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

A computer model with 100 variables is more likely to be correct than one with 100,000 variables. If you can't trust the one with 100, you going to place a large wager on the other? If so, we should get together and play poker some day.

100,000 indicators make up a stronger body of evidence than 100, wouldn't you say?

And when those 100,000 point in basically the same direction they are harder to dismiss than the 100, in my opinion.

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Climatologists. Ever heard of one before global warming? Ever see one on TV or quoted by a President?

Still doesn't answer my question: what will they gain from ultimate climatic chaos?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

100,000 indicators make up a stronger body of evidence than 100, wouldn't you say?

And when those 100,000 point in basically the same direction they are harder to dismiss than the 100, in my opinion.

If you have 100,000, there are going to be more unknowns. The more unknowns or guesses you enter into the equation, the more flawed the model. Simple science that even I can do.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

Still doesn't answer my question: what will they gain from ultimate climatic chaos?

That wasn't your question. In reality, one would need to believe that there is going to be climatic chaos in order to answer that question. Simply stating that something is going to happen and profiting from the attention (grants, interviews, fame, etc.) does not make it real. Ever heard of DDT?