Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1350326416' post='2493697']

You've always struck me as a lover of fruits.




Not that there's anything wrong with that.
[/quote]


There are a lot of fruits and nuts here in California!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1350267604' post='2493497']
Cap and trade is a republican idea. But yes, if you aren't willing to seriously engage with the problems of climate change then you are being morally irresponsible. Sorry.
[/quote]
Cap and trade is an asinine and tyrannical idea that would be economically disastrous (and hurt the poor more than anyone else, who would be least able to afford the sky-rocketing fuel costs). That Republicans as well as Democrats have supported this piece of legislative excrement is irrelevant.

Excrement is excrement, whether it falls from the backside of a donkey or an elephant.

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1350253789' post='2493391']
This thread is full of examples as to why many non-religious people consider religious individuals to be closed-minded, anti-scientific, and/or generally stupid.
[/quote]
God forbid religious individuals express politically-incorrect opinions.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1350431067' post='2494104']
God forbid religious individuals express politically-incorrect opinions.
[/quote]
Opposing something like abortion is politically incorrect, but religiously justifiable.

Opposing things like evolution and climate change when there is a large peer-reviewed body of data and an overwhelming consensus from the scientific community in support of it - and when the only voices against it come from un(der)educated individuals with no proof except anecdotal evidence and political rhetoric - might be politically incorrect, but moreover it's being embarassingly ignorant.



Tell me, what do you have to gain by believing and living your life as though anthropogenic climate change is a myth?
Edit to add that the above is a sincere question, not some kind of rhetorical trap.

Edited October 18, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1350352898' post='2493843']


There are a lot of fruits and nuts here in California!
[/quote]

I love fruit. It's delicious. Pistachios are also amazing.

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1350538179' post='2494366']
Opposing something like abortion is politically incorrect, but religiously justifiable.

Opposing things like evolution and climate change when there is a large peer-reviewed body of data and an overwhelming consensus from the scientific community in support of it - and when the only voices against it come from un(der)educated individuals with no proof except anecdotal evidence and political rhetoric - might be politically incorrect, but moreover it's being embarassingly ignorant.



Tell me, what do you have to gain by believing and living your life as though anthropogenic climate change is a myth?
Edit to add that the above is a sincere question, not some kind of rhetorical trap.
[/quote]


I give this ALL the props :D

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1350586214' post='2494460']


I give this ALL the props :D
[/quote]
So that is where all our props went!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1350538179' post='2494366']
Opposing something like abortion is politically incorrect, but religiously justifiable.

Opposing things like evolution and climate change when there is a large peer-reviewed body of data and an overwhelming consensus from the scientific community in support of it - and when the only voices against it come from un(der)educated individuals with no proof except anecdotal evidence and political rhetoric - might be politically incorrect, but moreover it's being embarassingly ignorant.



Tell me, what do you have to gain by believing and living your life as though anthropogenic climate change is a myth?
Edit to add that the above is a sincere question, not some kind of rhetorical trap.
[/quote]Because it's a choice of beliefs. It's not a cut and dried, proven fact, that humans are causing, or even a significant factor in climate change on Earth. t's a widely held opinion that is influenced by power, money, & politics. Why is it when opposing people want to step back and take a reasoned approach, not over-react, turn down the hysteria, get labeled as earth haters? Not accepting a reasonable (but unproven) hypothisis as a hypothesis and not fact, is not the same as labeling it a myth.

[b]There are many accredited climate scientists who dispute the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Richard Lindzen, Timothy Ball, Robert Balling, Roy Spencer, Bill Gray, Marcel Leroux, Fred Singer, Reid Bryson, and William Kininmonth are a few of the more famous ones. Others, like David Legates, George Kukla, Tim Patterson, John Christy, and William Cotton, while acknowledging the possibility that human activity influences climate change, either say human influence is minor compared to the natural forces causing temperatures to increase, or insist that we do not know enough about the climate to say, with certainty, that mankind is causing warming. And there are dozens of prominent scientists in other fields related to the issue that have weighed in on the skeptic side of the issue. A: Firstly, humans emit surprisingly few greenhouse gasses compared to the rest of the Earth. Most of the greenhouse gasses (something like 60-70%) come out of the oceans. A lot (like 30%) comes from things on land breathing. Very little (around 3%) comes from human pollutants (such as factories).

Secondly, there is not much empirical evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming. Though CO2 and temperature do appear to be strongly correlated over at least the last half-million years, it has always been temperatures going up first, followed (hundreds of years later) by CO2. So, if there is a cause-and-effect relationship at all between the two, clearly, increases in temperature cause increases in CO2, not the other way around, as global warming alarmists claim.

Lastly, global warming is happening on other planets, so the Sun as a cause is a very serious contender. Mars' ice caps are melting and Jupiter is having storms even more violent than usual. Also blame the sientest who created the greenhouses they are known as haters of nature.
Yes! There is some debate over whether global warming was started naturally, and it might have been, but humans have made it worse and worse. For example, the more carbon dioxide in our aptmosphere, the higher the temperature, causing global warming. And, of course, humans are the ones producing all the carbon dioxide by using cars, etc. [/b]

[KnightofChrist]

The math for climate change is always terrifying, the predictions are always apocalyptic. Growing up I believed all the sky is falling predictions. The ozone layer vanishing, the ice caps gone, oil gone, rain forest gone, etc etc all was suppose to have happened already. It hasn't, what has happened is that the terrifying predictions are replaced or repackaged with others. If I had not been lied to by so many science teachers growing up maybe it would be easier to swallow the crazy terrifying predictions today.

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1350538179' post='2494366']
Opposing something like abortion is politically incorrect, but religiously justifiable.

Opposing things like evolution and climate change when there is a large peer-reviewed body of data and an overwhelming consensus from the scientific community in support of it - and when the only voices against it come from un(der)educated individuals with no proof except anecdotal evidence and political rhetoric - might be politically incorrect, but moreover it's being embarassingly ignorant.[/quote]
I've actually read quite a bit of material on this topic from both sides, and it's your statement that's embarrassingly ignorant. The truth (though you may not know it if you read only liberal media accounts like [i]Rolling Stone[/i]) is that there are a number of highly credentialed and respectable scientists who don't buy the whole apocalyptic man-made global warming hysteria, and the actual data does not always conform to the scenario presented by the doom-sayers. Yes, these are real actual scientists with PhDs, and who use actual research, and they are not all political right-wingers, either. And there has been damning evidence that many pushing the doomsday global-warming agenda have deliberately fudged facts in order to push a political agenda (research the "climategate" emails).
It's also not accurate to try to paint this as a religion vs. science issue, as there are religious and irreligious people on both sides of the debate.

(This is kind of random, and not meant to be an authoritative statement, but this is a book review I read recently which brings up some of the issues involved in the debate, which is not so cut-and-dried settled as the Al Gore crowd wants to make it. [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=552"]http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=552[/url])

Evolution's a whole other debate, but I also believe that materialistic Darwinism cannot in itself account for the development of life on this planet, and that there are very serious scientific flaws with Darwinism. I'm not a young-earth creationist, but I think the attempts to immediately discredit and ignore anyone who suggests that intelligent design may be involved in the evolution of life on earth is likewise unscientific and politically-motivated. Many of these critiques of Darwinistic theory come from highly credentialed and intelligent scientists.

In both cases, trying to immediately discredit and silence any "heretics" from the pc "consensus" view by declaring them stupid and ignorant without seriously addressing their arguments is a sign of intellectual weakness and groupthink, rather than true scientific inquiry.

Declaring everyone who disagrees with your position to be stupid or uneducated (besides being false) is not intelligent debate, but mere puerile name-calling.


[quote]Tell me, what do you have to gain by believing and living your life as though anthropogenic climate change is a myth?
Edit to add that the above is a sincere question, not some kind of rhetorical trap.[/quote]
I really don't think I'd live my life significantly differently if I bought the whole apocalyptic man-made global warming scenario. I certainly don't advocate environmental irresponsibility. I just don't believe the facts prove that we are headed toward environmental armageddon unless we grant government massive sweeping new powers to save us.

I oppose nonsensical and tyrannical legislation such as cap-and-trade, which even scientists who believe in catastrophic man-made global warming admit would have a negligible effect on the actual climate, and which would be a massive economic disaster (which is why many politicians who once supported that croutons are now backing away from it). All such legislation would do is push the economy further down the toilet, increase poverty, and further expand the power of government bureaucrats. The real harm done by such statist mischief would far outweigh the dubious good.

I'd rather think for myself on these issues than get behind every politically-correct government boondoggle proposed in the name of "saving the planet."

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1350352898' post='2493843']


There are a lot of fruits and nuts here in[s] California![/s] Phatmas[s]s[/s]
[/quote]
Fixed it for yuh!

[Kia ora]

I trust my friends. They are scientists or studying science. Many postgraduates and Phds in physics, astrophysics, environmental science, biology etc. I'm only a Classicist and linguist in training, who could tell you loads of neat stuff about the Iliad and the phonotactics of Spanish. But I don't know anything about climate science or even science in general. I'm not ashamed to say that I believe what scientists say about their respective fields.

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1350647780' post='2494782']
I trust my friends. They are scientists or studying science. Many postgraduates and Phds in physics, astrophysics, environmental science, biology etc. I'm only a Classicist and linguist in training, who could tell you loads of neat stuff about the Iliad and the phonotactics of Spanish. But I don't know anything about climate science or even science in general. I'm not ashamed to say that I believe what scientists say about their respective fields.
[/quote]


Thank you, we greatly appreciate that :D

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1350600449' post='2494543']
I've actually read quite a bit of material on this topic from both sides, and it's your statement that's embarrassingly ignorant.



Evolution's a whole other debate, but I also believe that materialistic Darwinism cannot in itself account for the development of life on this planet, and that there are very serious scientific flaws with Darwinism. I'm not a young-earth creationist, but I think the attempts to immediately discredit and ignore anyone who suggests that intelligent design may be involved in the evolution of life on earth is likewise unscientific and politically-motivated. Many of these critiques of Darwinistic theory come from highly credentialed and intelligent scientists.

In both cases, trying to immediately discredit and silence any "heretics" from the pc "consensus" view by declaring them stupid and ignorant without seriously addressing their arguments is a sign of intellectual weakness and groupthink, rather than true scientific inquiry.

[/quote]


A carbon tax is not a 'sweeping new power.' Having a system in place to deal with externalities is actually a pretty basic aspect of modern states.

While we're out to attempt to discredit scientific theories that are backed by overwhelming evidence I guess I'd like to hear your thought on that heliocentric the essence of cow that the PC liberal media is always trying to ram down our throats?

[4588686]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1350587832' post='2494477']
Because it's a choice of beliefs. It's not a cut and dried, proven fact, that humans are causing, or even a significant factor in climate change on Earth. t's a widely held opinion that is influenced by power, money, & politics.
[/quote]


Yeah. Exon has pushed a lot of money into funding scientists to cry wold on all this climate change crutons.


Oh, wait. I'm sorry, that was a really absurd thing for me to say.