You can congratulate me on my vocabulary instead!I'm sad now.
I googled for confirmation, and now I can't congratulate you on coiniing a new word.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
okay.You can congratulate me on my vocabulary instead!
Necronic
Staff member
I think Nye did a decent job considering. Tucker was basically the quintessential Climate denied stance, its like wrestling with Jello while covered in oil on a skating rink. There's no firm position on anything, and you can't do scientific discourse on such malleable stances. So when Nye struggles to answer an intentionally obtuse question tucker jumps on this uncertainty to push the "rational skepticism" narrative, which I think is better described as a position of epistemological nihilism.
And when Tucker makes something resembling a firm position and Nye responds pretty decisively, multiple times. But Tucker just slips away again.
Science requires firm and clear questions to answer. It is very easy to try and befuddle science by doing what Tucker and other climate deniers do, by refusing to ask specific clear questions.
I almost feel like it's not worth fighting these guys. Not saying you throw in the towel, but I don't think it's worthwhile or even possible to have these arguments when the ground rules are already so inherently anti-thetical to scientific discourse.
And when Tucker makes something resembling a firm position and Nye responds pretty decisively, multiple times. But Tucker just slips away again.
Science requires firm and clear questions to answer. It is very easy to try and befuddle science by doing what Tucker and other climate deniers do, by refusing to ask specific clear questions.
I almost feel like it's not worth fighting these guys. Not saying you throw in the towel, but I don't think it's worthwhile or even possible to have these arguments when the ground rules are already so inherently anti-thetical to scientific discourse.
Really, what we need to "prove" anything is 25-50 years' more data, but of course by then it will be too late, and we'll be facing a Paradise Syndrome situation except without an obelisk to do the heavy lifting for us at the last moment.
--Patrick
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Even if we accept that man's CO2 emissions - which are 4% compared to 96% that comes from "natural" CO2 sources AND is practically nothing compared to water vapor - there's also the problem that the purported "cure" for anthropogenic climate change is basically the end of western civilization, and the beginning of global starvation and ruin. 73% of human-produced CO2 comes from electricity generation, and 66% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, a further 20% from nuclear and the remaining 14% is basically half hydro half all "renewable" combined. Furthermore, agricultural and transport work is utterly dependent on petroleum - there's not a battery powered farm combine, and trains, airplanes and trucks all still need petroleum to get food (and other goods) from production to market. Meanwhile, worldwide demand for energy is rising quickly, especially in the developing world. Any attempt to curb CO2 emissions will be fruitless without getting those just now coming into their boom cycle on board, especially China - a country well known for its complete and utter disregard for all things environmental and insatiable drive to economic and industrial power. If the US makes its population fall on its sword in the name of climate change, it'd be for nothing even if the so-called "consensus" is right about anthropogenic climate change.
Loved Ones Recall Local Man's Cowardly Battle With Cancer
Don't be like Russ. "We're all doomed anyway, might as well not even try, " is a lousy sentiment.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Again - presuming we are - for the sake of argument...
Ok, you pick which 5 billion of the 7 we've got that get to die gnawing each others bones and burning the neighbors' deconstructed houses for heat.
(given that the population at the beginning of the 20th century was about 2 billion)
GasBandit
Staff member
In this situation, them that die might be the lucky ones. I, for one, don't think I would like to live in a preindustrial postapocalypse.
Necronic
Staff member
So, this is what I mean by fighting on our own terms. You have made a series of specific claims which i can respond to
Think of it like a bathtub with a leaky spout. As long as the tub can drain faster than the leak (which is very slow), its no problem. But one day you go on vacation and the stopper was accidentally left in. That small little leak? That 4%? Just flooded your house.
And remember, in our system we aren't worried about flooding the house. We're worried about getting into slightly higher ppm levels of CO2.
But back to your point. You are right that natural sources are much larger sources of CO2. So....what should we do? Write Mother Nature a strongly worded letter? We have very little means to control how fast natural CO2 is emoted. With one exception. That's the clatherate gun. As temperature rises we melt permafrost which then releases more CO2. So the one effect we have is actually increasing the natural rate of consumption.
We have very limited control over the natural rate of CO2. We *do* have some control over the natural consumption rate. Focusing on high carbon capture plants and reforestation is pretty valuable, but it's not a triage solution, it's something we have to do slowly as we expand our own production rates.
So, while the argument seems good, it's based on a poorly dimensioned perspective (ignoring rates), and a belief that we have any real control over mother natures side of the equation. The only thing we can control is our own rate, and it doesn't have to be that high to kill us all.
Now. To the rest of your argument.
You raise some very good points. CO2 is pretty much synonymous with money. Limiting CO2 will have economic costs. But your argument is also pretty fallacious. There are a million ways we can help with this stuff.
-Not all fossil fuels are equivalent. To pretend all CO2 sources are equivalent is just absurd. Natural gas burns so much cleaner than garbage fuels like coal.
-Alternative sources of energy have seen tremendous expansion in the last few decades. We are nowhere near being able to replace fossil fuels with them yet, if ever, but redirecting wasted subsidies in other industries could accelerate their development rate quite a bit
-many other, more complex sources of CO2 (like methane) can be targeted and reduced through sound regulations limiting well and plant emissions, or through reducing the quantity of wasted methane lost to the atmosphere on cattle ranches.
-Similarly wasteful slash and burn logging styles do double damage against our problem by both generating more CO2 and reducing our recapture rate.
These are just a few quick off the cuff ideas. There are many other ideas like this floating out there.
It is very important that these ideas be carefully vetted and considered, we don't want another Solyndra and we don't want to unnecessarily burden industry without any substantial gains. Also cap and trade can eat my dick.
The point is that none of the points you made about the difficulty and cost, even though they are cogent, are in any way an argument against being more observant about the importance of trying to fix the coming disaster we are facing.
Ok, so this looks really sensible on paper, but it's fundamentally flawed. I'm going to assume your numbers are accurate, it doesn't change anything. The problem is that the biosphere has a rate of production and a rate of consumption. When we are in equilibrium everything is fine, when we are out of equilibrium, meaning we produce more than we eliminate, we have a rapidly growing problem.
Think of it like a bathtub with a leaky spout. As long as the tub can drain faster than the leak (which is very slow), its no problem. But one day you go on vacation and the stopper was accidentally left in. That small little leak? That 4%? Just flooded your house.
And remember, in our system we aren't worried about flooding the house. We're worried about getting into slightly higher ppm levels of CO2.
But back to your point. You are right that natural sources are much larger sources of CO2. So....what should we do? Write Mother Nature a strongly worded letter? We have very little means to control how fast natural CO2 is emoted. With one exception. That's the clatherate gun. As temperature rises we melt permafrost which then releases more CO2. So the one effect we have is actually increasing the natural rate of consumption.
We have very limited control over the natural rate of CO2. We *do* have some control over the natural consumption rate. Focusing on high carbon capture plants and reforestation is pretty valuable, but it's not a triage solution, it's something we have to do slowly as we expand our own production rates.
So, while the argument seems good, it's based on a poorly dimensioned perspective (ignoring rates), and a belief that we have any real control over mother natures side of the equation. The only thing we can control is our own rate, and it doesn't have to be that high to kill us all.
Now. To the rest of your argument.
You raise some very good points. CO2 is pretty much synonymous with money. Limiting CO2 will have economic costs. But your argument is also pretty fallacious. There are a million ways we can help with this stuff.
-Not all fossil fuels are equivalent. To pretend all CO2 sources are equivalent is just absurd. Natural gas burns so much cleaner than garbage fuels like coal.
-Alternative sources of energy have seen tremendous expansion in the last few decades. We are nowhere near being able to replace fossil fuels with them yet, if ever, but redirecting wasted subsidies in other industries could accelerate their development rate quite a bit
-many other, more complex sources of CO2 (like methane) can be targeted and reduced through sound regulations limiting well and plant emissions, or through reducing the quantity of wasted methane lost to the atmosphere on cattle ranches.
-Similarly wasteful slash and burn logging styles do double damage against our problem by both generating more CO2 and reducing our recapture rate.
These are just a few quick off the cuff ideas. There are many other ideas like this floating out there.
It is very important that these ideas be carefully vetted and considered, we don't want another Solyndra and we don't want to unnecessarily burden industry without any substantial gains. Also cap and trade can eat my dick.
The point is that none of the points you made about the difficulty and cost, even though they are cogent, are in any way an argument against being more observant about the importance of trying to fix the coming disaster we are facing.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
The problem with this metaphor is that it builds a false narrative. The atmosphere is not a bathtub and does not share its properties with it, and furthermore, as I pointed out, CO2 is already outdistanced in greenhouse-causing-power by water vapor by about 99.9 to 0.1. So, it's more like looking at all the faucets in the house going full blast, upstairs, downstairs, every bathroom and the kitchen, plus flushing all the toilets and running the dishwasher and washing machine and then claiming that the house will flood because the cat pees occasionally.
It burns 50-60% cleaner, but it is collected dirtier.
FTA: "The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions.
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments."
The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, and storage and transmission of that power will always be a problem. The fact of the matter is that even with the rapid expansion of alternative renewable "clean" energy sources, there are logistical problems that are unlikely to be overcome in a time frame where it would matter.
How do you reduce methane emissions from a cattle ranch, other than by reducing the number of cattle (and the subsequent increase in human hunger that goes with it)?
I'm with you on this one, but unfortunately most of the slash and burn happens not to harvest wood, but to clear land for agriculture - which gets back to hungry people.
I'm all for being observant, but I'm saying that the proposed solutions - that may not even have the desired thermal effect - will have a definite and horrific economic effect. It's practically tantamount to blood sacrifice to appease the gods when asking for good weather.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm not sure if I can explain it better than I already have. You have a rate at which it is generated, and a rate it is sequestered. That rate is not in balance which is causing CO2 levels to rise. The only thing that has changed is an increase in human generated CO2.
We can argue all day about the other stuff, there's a lot of interesting subtlety there, but this is pretty simple and if I can't get this part across I'm not sure if there's much point going on from here.
GasBandit
Staff member
Is it, though? Mars is going through a similar warming period, and we're definitely not contributing to its CO2 levels (given that it is entirely populated by a small handful of solar powered robots). We don't know what we don't know.
But if you're right, the short version of the real problem is that to fix this hockey stick:
We're gonna have to "fix" this hockey stick.
Psshht. We're not going to burn deconstructed houses for heat.
...that would raise CO2 levels!
@Necronic has the right of it. In order to effect change, we don't need to worry about ALL CO2 production, we just need to stop upsetting the balance. I really think that future civilizations will shake their heads at our predilection for collecting various forms of carbon from where it was safely sequestered deep underground and then releasing it into the biosphere. "It was already safely tucked away! Why did they dig it up? Didn't they know?" No, we did not know, but we sure enjoyed the (relatively) short-term benefits.
Well, there have been times in the not-all-that-long-ago-really past where the entire human population was reduced to something like 15,000 individuals worldwide, and we've bounced back from that, haven't we?
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
It is not sufficiently proven to me that we are what is "upsetting the balance." And addressing that "imbalance" will basically be tantamount to snapping necks.
Necronic
Staff member
See, so this is pretty much exactly what Tucker pulled in the Nye interview. You jello up, change positions, and sew the "rational skepticism"/"epistimological nihilism" seed on your way out.
But if you're right, the short version of the real problem is that to fix this hockey stick:
We're gonna have to "fix" this hockey stick.
Again, this is a failure of understanding more complex math. This looks important on paper. Highly correlated. And the two numbers are obviously causally linked. But then you draw, or imply, the specious conclusion that since a dimensionless population factor is the only way to look at it, therefore implying that it's either accepting CO2 emissions or facing mass death. In fact a far more interesting (and again, a dimensionally complex) number would be CO2 generated per capita. In a very simplistic sense, if you can reduce per capita CO2 emissions then you could dramatically reduce the worldwide CO2 emissions while still growing population. But there are other issues, and we need to look at the data for this.
And what do you know, someone has already thought of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
There are two things to look at here. The current snapshot of the given countries, and the trend over the years. There are huge gains to be made in relatively low population first world countries like the US. The US generates nearly 20% of the worlds CO2 but only accounts for 4% of the population. This counters your argument that population is directly linked to CO2 emissions. Not all pigs are equal.
Second, look at the trends. We actually have reduced our CO2 output substantially in these countries. The US has reduced it's CO2 emissions by nearly 20%. Many other low pop first world countries similarly are reducing their CO2 emissions at a rapid rate.
But then theres the other thing.....those other countries. The ones that have low emissions per capita currently, but are growing at an astounding rate. And those are not low pop countries. China may be the single most worrying one. It's per capita CO2 emission rate has increased nearly 4 fold over the last few decades, and currently produces nearly 30% of the worlds CO2. It is also still substantially behind the US and other developed countries, meaning it still has a long way to go. India as well is borderline negligible in the math, currently, but is growing rapidly.
There is a ton going on in this data. And it's a lot more complicated than your hockey stick. You just can't tie population directly to CO2 so simplistically as the majority of the world's population simply doesn't generate CO2 like we do. But what it tells me is that China and India are growing at a rate that will be hard to counter by our own decreases without some serious work. So you have a bunch of competing systems operating simultaneously. These are the kinds of problems that lead to phrases like np-hardasfuck
Look, end of the day, this shit is really complicated. There's lots going on, it's not simple. It's not something that can be prepackaged into soundbites. This is where the real arguments and scientific contention exists. There's a part of me that always gets to these points and wants to say that this stuff is so complicated so just sit back and let the real scientists do their job and listen to them, but that's really not enough. What you need to do is start listening, really listening to the math and science being thrown at you and try to understand. Stop retreating to tired simplistic arguments like the ones you've presented here. There is so much complex and convoluted science involved in this, there are so many more interesting and real arguments to be had. Will they be hard to understand? Sure, but right now you're sitting on mile one of a marathon arguing the rules while the rest of us on mile six have to keep slowing down to explain the basic principles of running to you and watching it like it's a game of QWOP.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't think my position has changed. I've said from the get go - I don't think it has been proven that climate change is anthropogenic in aspect, and I gave examples of why. I have, however, also entertained the notion that it IS the cause for the purposes of further argument to show how fruitless attempting to address that would be.
Or is it cherry picking math to suit a political agenda?
I'll get back to this after the next part...
That's because not all pigs are industrialized equally. Industry means CO2. Now, human industry only contributes a sliver of total CO2 output, and CO2's greenhouse effect contribution is massively, massively dwarfed by water vapor. When it fell out of style to be a communist, a lot of reds went watermelon - turned green on the outside, joining the "environmentalist" movement. There's been a constant, ceaseless attack on capitalist enterprise ever since, and one of the easiest ways to go after it has been the CO2 witch hunt. It's become the de facto religion of the left, even going so far as branding any questioning of the doctrine scientifically heretical. The only accepted case for climate change - which is what climates do, they change - is anthropogenic CO2. Nothing else. Everything else is perfectly static, and everything is accounted for. That doesn't pass the smell test.
We started dropping our CO2 emissions.. when? On that chart, sometime between 2005 and 2010. Could it also be explained by the fact that, at that point in time, we were slammed by the largest national and global economic crisis since the great depression, thus curtailing industry? And in that same time period, China has nearly doubled its CO2 production per capita - and I don't have to tell you there's a lot more "capita" in China than anywhere else. Which you touch on next -
China is behind per capita, but they're WAY ahead by raw CO2 volume, and shows no sign of slowing. It's clear that Beijing sees itself as coming into its turn as the global economic superpower with the shriveling of the US in progress, and that means industry boom - an industry far, far less worried about emissions of any kind than western countries.
My major objection to your line of "it's all there on paper do the math" argument is that I'm not convinced all the numbers are on the paper, and I'm not convinced all the numbers that ARE on the paper are correct. Even putting aside the unknown unknowns and possibility of human error, there's also the fact that we have found that data has been toyed with more than once by those seeking a desired outcome.
On the one hand you tell me how everything is so complicated a layperson can't possibly understand it but on the other hand you would have me believe that every possible variable is accounted for and every unknown is already known. And to just "sit back and let the scientists handle it" veers away from science and into the realm of scientism.
Anyone who says "The science is settled" isn't a scientist, they're an aspiring ecclesiarch.
Necronic
Staff member
I didn't see any that I didn't address. I already explained why that graph you presented is not meaningful. I legitimately may have missed another argument though.
Don't really see much point in responding to the "environmental science is cummonuism" argument.
100% agree. If they get to where we are per capita we are dead.
more jello and "rational skepticism"/"epistemological nihilism"
Bad/dishonest science is aggravating, and it does exist, but it's generally self correcting/self eliminating. Getting caught truly misrepresenting data is a great way to end your career. Good friend of mine made it 5 years through his PhD when it came out that his professor, who was a serious hotshot, had been fabricating data. He now works in South Korea, which seems to be a destination for more than a few academic cheats.
Don't let a few dishonest folks spoil you on the whole system. Let's be fair, capitalism itself is constantly beset by cheats, and communists use those cheats as grounds for a specious argument against capitalism itself. It's not a full argument in either case, and it mostly seems like you're trying to sew doubt for lack of an argument.
At the highest levels of current understanding, yes, a layperson could not understand it. I am not a layperson and I can't understand a most of high end climate science.
I don't think that's true at all. But I also don't think you need to know how fast a specific tree falls in Germany to know the math behind acceleration due to gravity. You are looking for unnecessary evidence to prove the basics that have already been covered so many times. This is the stuff that (presumably) any layperson should be able to understand, but by the grace of whatever they refuse to.
Look there are still people that think the earth is flat. Is it my responsibility to hire a plane to fly them around the world to prove it isn't?
Which is why I checked myself and said I don't like finding myself saying it.
Look, science is never truly settled. But that doesn't mean what you think it means. Classical mechanics was considered settled until schrodinger and his crew came in and flipped it on its ass. But that doesn't mean that classical mechanics is really wrong. It's right enough that it paves the foundation of damn near the entirety of engineering.
Classical mechanics is good enough to put planes in the air. But it's not actually "right". This is something that's...just really hard to explain to people that don't study science. They think that science is after some kind of religious concept of TRUTH.
We aren't, because that's impossible to find. What we find is enough information and knowledge to guide us in a fruitful manner. Laypeople mistake our fundamental and intentional acceptance scientific uncertainty for what their idea of uncertainty is.
When a scientist says he's uncertain about the nature of gravity that's not the same as when a lay person says they are uncertain about the outcome of the Super Bowl. A scientist can embrace some level of uncertainty and still know that it's certain enough to allow him to risk the lives of himself or others on it.
That's why a scientist or engineer who does not fully understand the true nature of gravity will willingly fill a plane up with old women and children and shoot it into the sky. We aren't absolutely certain that this time the engine won't open a portal to the realm of Chaos where Slaanesh will have its way with them, but we're certain enough to take this risk.
The same goes with the basics of climate science. We aren't certain about every aspect of it. It could be this whole thing is being caused by the Eldritch God Shub-Niggurath opening one of his thousand mouths and beginning the first phrase of the song that ends the worlds, but we're more inclined to believe that it is due to an increase in CO2 emissions caused by mankinds energy consumption.
Hey, Gas, remember when global warming was just baseless panic, like the global cooling thing in the 70s? Glad we updated it to "could just be a natural occurrence" now.
And seriously, the Mars thing makes no sense... the only one i heard that would make it related is that the Sun's activity is warming us and it... but that ignores the fact that there are other planets in this here star system.
....
The good thing is that not polluting, even if it's just locally, has easily provable advantages, even if climate change is just a chinese hoax. Ask your lungs.
And seriously, the Mars thing makes no sense... the only one i heard that would make it related is that the Sun's activity is warming us and it... but that ignores the fact that there are other planets in this here star system.
....
The good thing is that not polluting, even if it's just locally, has easily provable advantages, even if climate change is just a chinese hoax. Ask your lungs.
GasBandit
Staff member
Assuredly not. But abnormality itself does not prove its source.
False narrative. Unless, are you trying to say that global cooling was anthropogenic?
It's illustrating that natural forces cause warming and cooling even in complete absence of man's polluting ways.
Well, if we're talking mercury, sulphur, carbon monoxide and such, definitely all for not belching that out. But let me tell you something - I'm breathing in quite a bit of CO2 mixed with the rest of the air right now, and my lungs are fine.
The problem is, so very many of the original founding arguments for the Anthro climate change model were based on these shoddy or cheated data, which kind of throws a pall over the whole thing, so it's not exactly equivalent to "sometimes bad things and bad people happen." It's been part of the movement's inception.
I will never accept "look, this is too complicated for you to understand, just accept it" as a convincing argument. I fully recognize that there are things too complicated for me to understand, but just because I don't understand quantum theory doesn't mean I'm going to blindfold myself and be told by an agency with their own agenda that it is necessary for them to cut off my hands and feet because there are too many hands and feet, when I know for a fact there's 2 billion chinese whose hands and feet will not be cut off and will in fact be adding hands and feet as fast as they can.
It is if you are telling those people that the reason the earth is round is their fault and that it needs to be fixed, and the only way to fix it is to make economic and industrial changes near-guaranteed to starve and impoverish more than half the civilized world (and almost all the rest).
You're using hyperbole to make light of it, but you're also mischaracterizing my argument. You're incredibly confident in Anthropogenic CO2 causing climate change. As confident as previous scientists have been in phlogiston, caloric, and luminous ether. Prior to the acceptance of the Big Bang theory, even Einstein argued in favor of a static, enclosed universe. Call this "epistemological nihilism" if you want, the point is science is a process, not a proof, and scientists can and often are wrong - even simultaneously in great numbers.
And here is a list of scientists (I got from wikipedia, granted) who argue that the warming process is attributed to natural factors, not manmade ones. When I say "the science is not settled," I don't mean that no scientific argument can ever be truly settled, I mean that on this particular topic, the science is not settled.
- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
- Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg
- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
- Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
- David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
- William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University
- Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
- Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
- William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
- Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
- Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
- Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
- Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
- Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
- Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado
- Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
- Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
- Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
- Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
- Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
- Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
- George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
- Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
Necronic
Staff member
This is incorrect. The fundamentals of climate change were theorized by Arrhenius over a century ago. Also, I'm not convinced there was the level of scientific fraud in the beginning of the debate, but, and this is the really important part.
It doesn't matter. Because people went and redid the work and figured out that the data is more or less correct. See that's what I mean about scientific investigation being self correcting. And before you disagree recognize that at this point you and the rest of the deniers have already given ground to the idea that climate change is occurring. You yourself actually believe the data that you are contesting.
But you throw some smoke on the data itself just to undermine the part that is actually in contention, whether or not the change is ofcurring due to men.
This is the Jello at work. You don't disagree with the data, if you did you would actually argue that point. Instead you cast broad and whispy aspersions at it to assist in your claim of "skepticism" while you retreat to your next line of defense.
It's literally the same thing you have done in every one of your posts.
Ok so i don't know if you intentionally took my quote out of context or just misunderstood me, but that was not at all what I was saying. My point was that the highest levels, the place where the PhDs in climatology are breaking ground right now, a lot of that is far too complex for you, or I, to fundamentally understand.
It's also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand because we aren't discussing the high level stuff, we're discussing the basics. There is no reason for us to even worry about the advanced material until we get out of Climate Change 101.
So, I reject your assertion that I am denying you any agency when I say you couldn't just sit down and digest a PhD dissertation on climatology without any serious academic training.
I also reject that the claim I am making has any relevance to the argument at hand, and it looks a lot like it is just another attempt to grease up and slide the argument into a position that makes you look like the underdog rational skeptic.
Yep. This is absolutely a real thing. Tons of scientists held incorrect views. And there are two ways it goes. They either get exposed to data and theory that contradicts their views and change their positions, or they stick with their incorrect views until their deathbed.
The first is literally what science is. You have a theory. A competing theory comes out. Data supports competing theory. You accept competing theory until more data comes out. This is how we got the point we are at with regards to our current understanding of climate science.
The second type is the scientist who, when presented with overwhelming evidence, refuses to change his position. A lot of very well respected scientists fell into this pit. Newton and Joseph Priestly are two I can think of. The irony of you bringing this group up is that this is the mistake climate change deniers are falling victim to.
And again, there is no actual argument about climate science in what you're saying here. You're just generally trying to undermine the concept of science itself, because scientists have been wrong before.
I find it even more ironic that you chose to end your argument with a blatant example of the appeal to authority you were so unsuccessfully striving to extract from my own words.
I want you to be honest here. Really honest. Can you name a single argument that these scientists have made with regard to climate change, without having to look it up? I would be surprised if you can since you admit that this is just a list of names you pulled from Wikipedia. Either way, I would be more than happy to hear a good academic argument for issues with climate change theory.
Because right now here are the argumemts you have presented, along with concise recreations of the rebuttals.
1) natural CO2 and water vapor emissions are much higher than any man made ones, therefore its probably not man made
1a). This ignores the rate/time-dimensionality of the problem, and also ignores the fact that the only factor in the equation we can control is our own CO2 emission.
1*). You also seem to be admitting to CO2 and Water Vapor being the root causes of climate change.
2) Population growth is inherently tied to CO2 emissions, therefore trying to tackle it would lead to billions of lost lives.
2a) while the latter is true you ignore a lot of important subtlety that can be found by further examining the Per Capita CO2, and why it's possible for us to deal with climate change (reduction in major producers) and why it's so damned important to get in it (alarming increases in developing nations)
2*). You also seem to be admitting here that the CO2 issue is manmade.
3) Environmental Science is communism
3a) non-sequitor
4) the data is inherently dishonest
4a) the theory is over a century old and the data has been re-examined, enough so that climate deniers actually accept it, therefore this is not even in contention. The contention is no longer if the data implies the climate is changing, it's whether or not the cause is man made (see 2*)
5) but scientists get stuff wrong all the time
5a) yes they do. When good ones see a theory better supported by data they change their views. Bad scientists will refuse to do this in the face of overwhelming evidence. Climate scientists fall into the first category. Deniers fall into the second.
6) but I'm just being skeptical and asking questions, isn't that ok?
6a). Yes it is. And I've given you quite a few answers. Skepticism is great. But skepticism for its own sake without listening to answers isn't (see 5a)
-------------------
I am more than willing to continue this argument as long as you want, but try to bring something new, and leave the Jello to Mr Cosby.
Last edited:
I'm saying I actually remember your previous positions from years ago.
So you're trying to prove weather exists by referencing another planet?
Clearly you should up the dosage... im sure nothing bad will happen to you.
Oooooo.... now do one for smoking not causing cancer in the '70s...
And again, if the cosmic radiation thing the links i went to seem to favour was true, we'd see an increase for all the planets in the system...
GasBandit
Staff member
By "the movement's inception" I meant the current drive to alter political policy to address climate change by reducing CO2 output.
You ignore the parts of the posts you don't want to deal with (and call it smoke) and argue with other parts. Yes, I acknowledge that the climate changes, and that humans produce CO2 and are producing more of it. That it is proven that it is what has caused Darkaudit's 80 degree West Virginia February is what I question.
But that's exactly what you're doing. Every reply to me you have made basically boils down to repeating your appeal to authority and then acting like it has addressed every issue.
You say it's this group doing so, I say it's that group doing so.
I was trying to come to you on your own terms. Your main argument HAS been one massive appeal to authority.
Of course I can't, as you well know, and if I were you, I'd be accusing you of casting broad and wispy aspersions on a completely normal fact - that I would need to look up the exact nature of their arguments - to deflect that the point I was making was that there are scientists - a fair number of them it turns out (and here are 30k more, 9k of which are PhDs) - who disagree with the anthropogenic argument. Of course, you then went right on to say that they were "sticking to their incorrect beliefs unto their deathbed," while I'm relatively sure you also didn't bother to look up their arguments either.
You misrepresent the scale involved. I can control whether or not I spit in the ocean, but that does not mean our odious personal habits are the root cause in changes in oceanic salinity or tide levels.
Water Vapor 99+ times moreso than CO2, and anthro CO2 being a tiny percentage of all CO2.
Per capita CO2 is largely irrelevant from what I see. By your model, why would it be better for the same amount of actual CO2 to be more evenly distributed among the population? Also, pertaining to "reduction in major producers," as I asked before and you didn't respond, how do you reduce methane and CO2 emissions from an outdoor ranch/dairy other than by reducing the amount of cattle there?
Not "the CO2 issue," I assert that CO2 is part and parcel of human industry, yes.
3aa) Political motivation is hardly a non sequitur. Just because the watermelon metaphor is old and possibly trite doesn't mean that there isn't political motivations for hampering capitalist industry.
Broken clocks and blind pigs? See also 3aa.
That's quite a nice little inquisition you got on your hands, there. Remind me, how many counterexamples does it take to disprove something?
You want my assertions, here they are -
1) The scientific community is still divided on whether or not anthropogenic CO2 is the main factor in climate change, and I have given links to support that assertion.
2) Even if, for argument's sake, we accept for the moment that it is the case that anthro CO2 is the main factor in climate change, attempting to curb output of CO2 is a largely fruitless endeavor because those most likely to increase their CO2 output in the future will not deny themselves the economic boon, thus western civilization would impoverish itself to no climatological effect.
and
3) Even if, for argument's sake, we accept for the moment that it isn't a fruitless endeavor, reducing anthropogenic CO2 to the degree required to reverse global warming would mean economic consequences resulting in the deaths of billions.
So, which billion gets to die first?
You mean something I said toward the end of a 10 year cooling trend? I thought it wasn't a sin to change one's position based on new evidence. Now it is?
This is barely worth a response. No, I'm showing that warming can occur for reasons other than anthropogenic CO2.
You're making a nonsense pseudoscientific quasi-point here. Are you really asserting that the primary danger of atmospheric CO2 is to human lungs?
Necronic
Staff member
Ok. Fair enough. So your problem is with the data from the movements inception?
Ok so you acknowledge here that the data is actually ok, but it's the conclusion that's wrong? Then why bring up so called bad data that you yourself admit is not bad? I'm legitimately struggling to understand your point here.
Where have I made an appeal to authority? This may be a blindspot for me, but I don't believe I have.
So...this is actually an appeal to authority. I'm really surprised you don't see how this is an incredibly transparent appeal to authority. And it's not even a good one.
1) 30k "PhDs" did not sign a petition, 10k did
2) there is no verification of the idea that they had a PhD (people inserted a bunch of Star Wars characters into the petition ffs.
3) even if we take their word for it only 12% of the signatories even have degrees in a remotely relevant field.
4) Only 1 in the 30 PhD signatories who were contacted by scientific America even worked in climate change, and that guy said he no longer even believed that it was a question.
I mean if you're going to appeal to authority at least try and use a better resource than the Drudge Report or wherever you pulled this from to get your facts.
But...that may be a bit hard to find.
Actually no, I didn't. I said that if you could actually show me any of their academic arguments against the idea of anthropogenic climate change I would listen to it.
So this still goes back between you not understanding the difference between a flat amount and a rate. Look, think of it like the national budget. We spend like 3 Trillion a year right? So why should I give a shit about an extra 50 billion on one program or another? That 50 billion is like spitting in the ocean right? Of course not. Any excess expenses that can't be covered by the revenue are going to build our deficit over time.
Now, instead of a money deficit, it's a carbon deficit, and instead of controlling all of it we only get to control the last 4%. But that's ok because we're only like 1/5 of 1% over budget so we have the means to reduce and control that.
It literally doesn't even matter if we are the cause of it, because we are the only way to stop it and the only way to do that is to reduce our own emissions.
As for the water vapor thing, since you keep bringing it up, I would suggest you read this article by NASA about it. Check it out before the new president has these records deleted.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Water vapor is a huge player, but not in the sense that you think, it is a catalyst for CO2 warming, like the clatherate gun.
See in a normal system you are right, water vapor traps tons of energy. But it is entirely irrelevant to the math because it's a constant. But in reality our system isn't even at that level, water vapor is actually serving as a catalyzing agent in CO2 warming in some kind of terrifying feedback loop.
I didn't say that. I said that because per capita CO2 isn't constant we can clearly reduce our total CO2 emissions while still maintaining a large population.
I didn't respond because I don't see the point in discussing solutions until we actually understand the problem, but I'll humor you. For one I don't see the problem with reducing global cattle population. People can eat what they want but the true cost of cattle should be understood in the price.
Also, there have been more than a few experimental farms that focus on carbon recapture. I don't think we're there yet but with time we could actually find an elegant solution to this problem.
I don't think this is actually true, and even then I'm not sure it matters.
I mean if you want to throw in the towel because it's too hard to figure out be my guest, but don't stop the rest of us from trying. Keep us honest about the real cost of regulations, I wholeheartedly believe that's an important concern, but don't give up before the fight even started.
Shit if there's one thing I like about you it's that you're no quitter.
That's a big assertion, but you know what, I'm not going to disagree with it out of hand. If we could actually get to this point in the argument I would be more than willing to have it, but that would require you to actually accept that there is even a problem in the first place.
--------
Also, I really don't feel like this is anything new, I feel like you're just repackaging the same arguments from before.
I'll fight you.
Just gimme a month or two for this leg to heal.
Damn it, I'm fucked when the apocalypse comes.
Dave
Staff member
You and O_C are two of them that I wouldn't be able to take easily. Maybe at a distance with the right weaponry and surprise, but if I needed all that I'd rather just team up and help each other.
I'm guessing Tin with his hand to hand voodoo would probably mess you up too.
Dave
Staff member
I think you'd be right.
GasBandit
Staff member
It illustrates that the problem was approached first as a political one and not a scientific one, shaping the avenue of approach to this day.
See above.
You've asserted that the models you've presented are fact because they are backed by scientists who agree with you, and that my skepticism is invalid because it is backed by scientists who don't.
It was an intentional appeal to authority to illustrate the above.
... Is that not what I said? (goes back to check) Yes, that's what I said, I said 30k scientists, 9k of which are PhDs.
Alright, I'll accept that and retract that submission, it was just something I stumbled on while looking up other things for this discussion and thought "huh, guess I should toss a link to this in."
So, assuming the math works out on that, what level do you assert would Anthro CO2 need to fall to, and for how long?
So if I'm understanding this article correctly, as the earth heats, it also creates more water vapor, which in turn creates more vapor and releases more oceanic CO2. Would you say that this "gun" has already fired? And isn't it arguably feasible we'd have experienced this feedback loop regardless of human contribution or lack thereof?
How is that clear? Most of western civilization supports its population levels by fossil-fuel powered farming and transport, and similar methods are being introduced to the developing world. China might have the manpower to go back to tilling all the fields by hand, but they certainly don't seem to want to do so. Curtailing fossil fuel use would probably most severely impact larger cities first, as less food would make it there from the distant farms where it is produced in ever dwindling amounts.
It's not just cows, though, and not just animals even. It's all well and good to say that the cost will be understood in the price, but that sure makes for a lot more starving poor people.
Well, we can always hope, I suppose. But until these experiments make it to the market in general, I don't know that we should figure them in policy.
I know you don't think it is true, but why would scientific dissent on the cause of climate change not matter?
Well, there's quitting and there's quitting. When you recognize the futility of an impossibility, continuing to endeavor at that impossibility is not productive. But hey, when it comes to China and pollution and CO2 emission, maybe the horse will laugh.
Well, that's why I said "accepting for the sake of argument."
Yeah, I thought I should restate my assertions succinctly because it seemed to me they were getting lost in digression at many points in the discussion thus far.[DOUBLEPOST=1488413227,1488413156][/DOUBLEPOST]
I call Doc Severin on my team!
GasBandit
Staff member
Hah, all this reminds me of last week when this video came out (but I didn't share it at the time because I didn't think it funny enough).About all I have going for me is that I can use a bow. But if I survive until all of the gun ammo runs out, you are all doomed.
College Kids react to eating raw meat, including surprise human meat.
I think I could eat human meat, but I'd like to cook it first, if possible.
Anyhow, as far as the discussion goes, this is what I see:
- Everyone involved in this discussion believes that global warming is a real and factual thing.
- @Necronic believes that humankind is at least partially responsible for this, but @GasBandit remains skeptical that humankind's aggregate emissions are enough to meaningfully tip that balance into feedback. In fact, @GasBandit believes that even if all 7-odd billion people on the planet immediately switched to maximum conservation, this would still not be enough to bring total global emissions low enough to prevent the feedback loop.
--Patrick