Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues - Part 1

[Kelly]

It isn't much but i do what I can. I try to drive less/carpool, buy more indoor house plants (I got a big collection now), continue my compost pile, lED lighting throughout my house, more evergreen trees for outside, recycle religiously, buy Organic/ buy locally.

I think those are all great things to do. I'm not a major "OMG, Global Warming" kind of person, but I certainly think we can all be smarter in how we live our lives.

 

[Destructus86]

I think climate change is real...but it's a natural occurrence. In fact, we know this is the case. I think the humanities effect on nature is much more direct. Not so much related to climate but more direct alterations of nature. Poisoning water and land, harmful chemicals we toss that have impact on wildlife, etc..

Our interference is smaller in impact individually but overtime builds up to have an impact on the nature around us. We should be a lot less concerned with climate and more concerned with large companies that take advantage of nature.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I think climate change is real...but it's a natural occurrence. In fact, we know this is the case.

This is a major (and pervasive) logical fallacy. The fact that the climate does vary without human interference does not mean that humans can have no significant effect.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

It isn't much but i do what I can. I try to drive less/carpool, buy more indoor house plants (I got a big collection now), continue my compost pile, lED lighting throughout my house, more evergreen trees for outside, recycle religiously, buy Organic/ buy locally.

You use an Improvised Explosive Device for lighting?! Isnt that dangerous?

 

[Apollo]

You use an Improvised Explosive Device for lighting?! Isnt that dangerous?

Whoops. I forgot to capitalize the L!. -> I meant LED.


That is pretty funny though t:

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Haha ya I figured. I too found it humorous but I knew what you meant

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I prefer to allow him to damage his own credibility - something he consistently does, and in spectacular fashion.

As I enjoy watching you claim "we must listen to the scientists" but then attack any scientist who does not support your politics. Your last reply to me was you disagreeing with a scientist.

So, without revealing what side of the argument I'm on, I'm going to ask this question:

Regardless of your views on the science, or what's causing what to happen, SHOULDN'T WE STILL MAKE A LEGITIMATE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PLANET THAT WE ALL LIVE ON?!

What "legitimate effort" do you mean?

If you mean that we should act in a way that assumes a warming climate is bad and that the climate would not be warming if not for human beings. that reveals your political stance completely.

Your question also is framed in a way that assumes our species is all-powerful to the point that we are in charge of the planet. That reveals a lot too.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

This is a major (and pervasive) logical fallacy. The fact that the climate does vary without human interference does not mean that humans can have no significant effect.

I see you use the same non-scientific word "significant" that was used in the "consensus" survey. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

No wonder most of the scientists chose not to respond to the survey.

I find it far more refreshing to listen to real scientists talk about the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I&feature=share

This one is awesome because you get to see politicians (from both sides) try to manipulate the scientist into only say things that will support their agenda. The stark difference between politics and science on full display:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013030153#start=599&stop=5947

 

[Feenix]

Oh, good. James Inhofe was elected to be the new Environment Committee Chairman.

You know, the man who wrote "The Greatest Hoax- How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens your Future."

 

[Destructus86]

This is a major (and pervasive) logical fallacy. The fact that the climate does vary without human interference does not mean that humans can have no significant effect.

There has been no true evidence to indicate humans have an impact on climate. (aside from the pseudoscience articles floating around the internet) If humans were indeed a major influence in climate change there would be obvious and undeniable evidence to support that conclusion. The fact people have to look so hard to find any evidence just proves it's not so, especially considering how massive of an impact humans would need to have in order to alter the course of an entire planets climate system.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The science has been in on the matter for quite some time. At this point to disagree is just comical

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Stephen Colbert Calls Out "I'm Not a Scientist" Climate-Change Deniers

Stephen Colbert hasn't quite jumped on the very popular "arrest climate-change deniers" bandwagon yet, but he proved last night that he's ready to go as far as "mock climate-change deniers mercilessly."

Despite a consensus among 97% of climate scientists that humans are contributing to climate change, denialists won big in this week's midterm elections, putting conspiracy theorist James Inhofe (R-Magical Christmas Land) in control of the Senate Environment Committee. Even Colbert's conservative TV persona understands he's an idiot.

But Inhofe is not alone. Watch Colbert masterfully take apart every GOP politician who's ever excused his climate change stance with the old "I'm not a scientist" routine. It's condescending, but in the most satisfying way.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sc6mpp/the-republicans--inspiring-message-on-climate-change

Vid at the link, love it when Colbert makes these idiots look exactly like what they are

 

[SV Fan]

Stephen Colbert Calls Out "I'm Not a Scientist" Climate-Change Deniers

"I'm not a Scientist" has to be one of the dumbest talking points ever. Most these people probably aren't economists, farmers, marriage councillors, etc yet they seem to have no problem finding opinion on those things. Beyond that if they aren't scientists why did they over react when it came to Ebola(ie they have no scientific background to make a conclusion)

 

[Doctor Evo]

There has been no true evidence to indicate humans have an impact on climate. (aside from the pseudoscience articles floating around the internet) If humans were indeed a major influence in climate change there would be obvious and undeniable evidence to support that conclusion. The fact people have to look so hard to find any evidence just proves it's not so, especially considering how massive of an impact humans would need to have in order to alter the course of an entire planets climate system.

This is either one of the most earth-shatteringly ignorant posts I've ever read, or it's one of the most blatant trolling attempts I've ever come across. I honestly can't tell which it is.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I see you use the same non-scientific word "significant" that was used in the "consensus" survey. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

What word would you like me to use instead?

I also can't help but laugh at the implication that the word "significant" is somehow inherently unscientific, especially considering that the word is most often used within the context of statistical analysis in scientific literature.

Of course, this criticism does nothing to address (and/or refute) the point I was making.

 

[Doctor Evo]

As I enjoy watching you claim "we must listen to the scientists" but then attack any scientist who does not support your politics. Your last reply to me was you disagreeing with a scientist.

1) This has nothing to do with my "politics." I understand that you are incapable of distinguishing between the scientific issue and the political issue here, but please don't project that inability upon me.

2) I disagree with scientists all the time. That's just kind of what we do. We're critical of other scientists' findings and conclusions and force them to defend themselves - constantly. And, in turn, I'm expected to defend my own findings and conclusions.

3) I didn't attack the scientist - I refuted his claims. There's a difference. I presented a well-reasoned and well-supported counterargument. I also can't help but notice that you addressed precisely *none* of those points in your reply, instead opting to post this hilariously inept and flagrant attempt at redirection.

4) "Listen to the scientists" does not automatically translate to, "accept everything scientists say." Never once have I advocated for that approach. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest (but we've already established that you're not above dishonest tactics).

5) This is pathetic, even for you. I get that your goal is to sway the less intelligent posters here, but this fruit is hanging so low it's practically rotted into the ground. You really need to step up your game, because any poster with an 80+ IQ is going to see right past these kinds of tactics.

I would say, "Come on, you're better than that," but we both know that isn't true.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

The science has been in on the matter for quite some time. At this point to disagree is just comical

So....if the science was "in on the matter"...why didn't alarmists predict the lack of warming over the past two decades? Why are they only now coming up with excuses for it?

Stephen Colbert Calls Out "I'm Not a Scientist" Climate-Change Deniers

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sc6mpp/the-republicans--inspiring-message-on-climate-change

Vid at the link, love it when Colbert makes these idiots look exactly like what they are

All politicians are idiots. That's not hard to do. I think Republicans are only right on this because they feel they must oppose anything Democrats support.

And since he used the fake "97% of climate scientists" argument, Cobert also looks like an idiot.

"I'm not a Scientist" has to be one of the dumbest talking points ever. Most these people probably aren't economists, farmers, marriage councillors, etc yet they seem to have no problem finding opinion on those things. Beyond that if they aren't scientists why did they over react when it came to Ebola(ie they have no scientific background to make a conclusion)

You don't understand. You are allowed to speak out in support of AGW theory with as much bluster and exaggeration as you want with zero scientific credentials. (Cobert, for instance, is allowed to speak freely as an alarmist) But if you express skeptical views you must be a scientist. ...Of course even then you will be accused of "being paid by oil companies" or be dismissed as a hack or something.

That's how religion works.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

What word would you like me to use instead?

I also can't help but laugh at the implication that the word "significant" is somehow inherently unscientific, especially considering that the word is most often used within the context of statistical analysis in scientific literature.

What is scientific about the word "significant"? It's a word that can mean something different for everyone.

If you mean it is used as a descriptive term for hard numbers, that's true. But that's not how it was used in the "consensus survey".

1) This has nothing to do with my "politics." I understand that you are incapable of distinguishing between the scientific issue and the political issue here, but please don't project that inability upon me.

You do that without my help.

2) I disagree with scientists all the time. That's just kind of what we do. We're critical of other scientists' findings and conclusions and force them to defend themselves - constantly. And, in turn, I'm expected to defend my own findings and conclusions.

Agreed. That's why "the consensus" claim is so laughable. Scientists disagree about just about every facet of this issue.

3) I didn't attack the scientist - I refuted his claims. There's a difference. I presented a well-reasoned and well-supported counterargument. I also can't help but notice that you addressed precisely *none* of those points in your reply, instead opting to post this hilariously inept and flagrant attempt at redirection.

You did nothing of the sort. You do continue to attack me though...even after I just presented other scientists for you do disagree with. You act nothing like most of the scientists who talk about the issue. Even Phil Jones himself is more honest about it when he is asked direct questions.

He fully admits there is no "consensus" for instance:

When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

And since you like the word "significant":

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

4) "Listen to the scientists" does not automatically translate to, "accept everything scientists say." Never once have I advocated for that approach. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest (but we've already established that you're not above dishonest tactics).

You've "established" a lot of things in your mind. That is irrelevant to me.

I certainly don't automatically accept everything scientists say. That appeal to authority tactic is flawed...and naturally a mainstay of AGW alarmism.

5) This is pathetic, even for you. I get that your goal is to sway the less intelligent posters here, but this fruit is hanging so low it's practically rotted into the ground. You really need to step up your game, because any poster with an 80+ IQ is going to see right past these kinds of tactics.

I would say, "Come on, you're better than that," but we both know that isn't true.

No idea why you think your continued attempt to hurl weak insults is supposed to impress me.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

So....if the science was "in on the matter"...why didn't alarmists predict the lack of warming over the past two decades? Why are they only now coming up with excuses for it?


All politicians are idiots. That's not hard to do. I think Republicans are only right on this because they feel they must oppose anything Democrats support.

And since he used the fake "97% of climate scientists" argument, Cobert also looks like an idiot.


You don't understand. You are allowed to speak out in support of AGW theory with as much bluster and exaggeration as you want with zero scientific credentials. (Cobert, for instance, is allowed to speak freely as an alarmist) But if you express skeptical views you must be a scientist. ...Of course even then you will be accused of "being paid by oil companies" or be dismissed as a hack or something.

That's how religion works.

So how do you explain the ice caps continuously melting at an alarming rate year after year. And don't bother pointing to this year where they froze more than usual. I'm talking about the trend that each year they almost melt completely. Go back a page or so and I posted an article showing that data from a satellite showed conclusively that they have lost enough mass to mess with the gravity in those areas

EDIT: also please explain why large corporations that have places of business near the sea are preparing those places for rising sea levels?

 

[Doctor Evo]

What is scientific about the word "significant"? It's a word that can mean something different for everyone.

Not in statistical analysis.

If you mean it is used as a descriptive term for hard numbers, that's true. But that's not how it was used in the "consensus survey".

About which I wasn't speaking.

Agreed. That's why "the consensus" claim is so laughable. Scientists disagree about just about every facet of this issue.

Way to take what I said completely out of context.

You did nothing of the sort.

I most certainly did.

Yet another evasion.

You act nothing like most of the scientists who talk about the issue. Even Phil Jones himself is more honest about it when he is asked direct questions.

He fully admits there is no "consensus" for instance:

When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

A little context would be nice here. There's a difference between debating the finer points of warming and debating whether it's anthropogenic.

This is rather like saying, "There's no scientific consensus on evolution." If I were asked whether such a consensus exists, I would give a similar answer not because the vast majority of scientists do not agree that the phenomenon is real, but because we're still learning about exactly how it works and what its consequences are.

But I wouldn't expect you to be able (or willing) to recognize the difference. And you wouldn't know the first thing about scientists who talk about this issue. I happen to work with many.

You speaking with any level of authority on that front is simply laughable.

And since you like the word "significant":

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

1) You criticize my use of the word "significant," in one breath, then justify it the next. Brilliant.

2) A lack of statistical significant does not automatically translate to "it's not happening." It represents a failure to reject a null hypothesis. Do you understand what this means?

No idea why you think your continued attempt to hurl weak insults is supposed to impress me.

If you really think that my goal is to impress you, then you haven't been paying attention. I made my intentions quite clear.

 

[Hobgoblin]

U.S./China Agree on Cutting Greenhouse Gases

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

At the end of a trade summit in China, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a climate change agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping that would cut both countries' greenhouse gas emissions by close to a third over the next two decades.

Under the agreement, the United States would cut between 26-28% of the level of its carbon emissions set in 2005 by 2025, and China would do the same by 2030.

"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," Obama said Wednesday in a joint press conference with Xi.

Obama said he hopes the announcement will spur other nations to tackle climate change.

"We hope to encourage all major economies to be ambitious -- all countries, developing and developed -- to work across some of the old divides, so we can conclude a strong global climate agreement next year," Obama said.

The White House said the ultimate target is to "achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80% by 2050."

 

[JeetKuneDo]

So how do you explain the ice caps continuously melting at an alarming rate year after year. And don't bother pointing to this year where they froze more than usual. I'm talking about the trend that each year they almost melt completely. Go back a page or so and I posted an article showing that data from a satellite showed conclusively that they have lost enough mass to mess with the gravity in those areas

That was a pretty funny post. "Throwing off the earth's gravitational field". Since the arctic has been ice free many times in earth's history, this is obviously not a problem But that didn't stop it being termed as "Yeah, pretty sure that's bad.".

Really? "Pretty sure that's bad"? The tiny change in gravity never was a problem before...but now it's something to cause people to hide under the covers of their beds?

Alarmists never fail to impress me with their willingness to assign doom to any and all occurrences.

Even better that the poster in this thread who keeps claiming he is a "scientist" had no comment on that article at all. I guess it's ok when it supports an agenda.

EDIT: also please explain why large corporations that have places of business near the sea are preparing those places for rising sea levels?

That's a great example of how we have and will continue to adapt to anything that happens. It's what we do. One of the main things doomsayers always leave out when they predict our imminent demise.

Yes that's right....doomsayers ignore the greatest talent of the human race in order to support the doom predictions.

Not in statistical analysis.

Ok...what does "significant" mean exactly. Remember you aren't allowed to use any other words to nail down its exact meaning because the "consensus" survey didn't do that.

About which I wasn't speaking.

Unfortunately, that was the topic of conversation.

Way to take what I said completely out of context.

We're talking about the fabricated "consensus" here. You described exactly the way scientists really behave.

I most certainly did.

Not at all. You answered the views of a scientist describing his views in a video with a link to a blog post that was so devoid of facts it could only point to a time period of "50-100 years". The IPCC won't venture back any further than 1950...but the blog needs to include all the warming since the LII ended...can't let any natural warming into the conversation, can we?

I agree with the scientist, you agree with the blog post that bases its conclusions on a lack of information. ("We can't explain it")

A little context would be nice here. There's a difference between debating the finer points of warming and debating whether it's anthropogenic.

How much of the warming is anthropogenic is one of the "finer points". You trying to leave that part out? How about the debate over climate sensitivity? That's a pretty big one.

Again, most agree with the idea that some warming is due to human activity (including the skeptical scientists that alarmists attack), the debate begins from that point. Alarmists imply both that all the warming is human caused and that warming is catastrophic. Both those ideas are very much up for debate. There is a reason why the consensus survey did not bother to ask "Will the warming be catastrophic?" That's because scientists don't agree on that.

I suppose you'll ignore the fact that the main point of AGW alarmism is claiming that warming will be catastrophic and that is what all the "We must change our lifestyle now or we are doomed" is based upon. This is not about "agreeing that the earth has warmed and that man has played a role". Because we all agree on that.

1) You criticize my use of the word "significant," in one breath, then justify it the next. Brilliant.

I criticize the use of the word in the consensus survey where no attempt was made to clarify the term. Their use of the word was not scientific in the slightest.

2) A lack of statistical significant does not automatically translate to "it's not happening." It represents a failure to reject a null hypothesis. Do you understand what this means?

I do. It's what alarmists have dismissed from the conversation since 1988. Another reason why it's obviously political.

U.S./China Agree on Cutting Greenhouse Gases

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Good. Yet another "promise" that is merely a way to pass the buck and gives politicians something to brag about and claim they did something.

They've been doing things like that for decades. It has resulted in the biggest increase in CO2 emissions in human history. Somewhere, Bjorn Lomborg is shaking his head in dismay. He's the most sensible AGW believer there is.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Good. Yet another "promise" that is merely a way to pass the buck and gives politicians something to brag about and claim they did something.

They've been doing things like that for decades. It has resulted in the biggest increase in CO2 emissions in human history. Somewhere, Bjorn Lomborg is shaking his head in dismay. He's the most sensible AGW believer there is.

It will do fine...until a Republican president comes along and decides to gut it, a la Kyoto Protocol.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Even better that the poster in this thread who keeps claiming he is a "scientist" had no comment on that article at all.

Oh, my...you must be a detective.

While we're on the topic of lies...

Ok...what does "significant" mean exactly. Remember you aren't allowed to use any other words to nail down its exact meaning because the "consensus" survey didn't do that.

Unfortunately, that was the topic of conversation.

We're talking about the fabricated "consensus" here. You described exactly the way scientists really behave.

Not at all. You answered the views of a scientist describing his views in a video with a link to a blog post that was so devoid of facts it could only point to a time period of "50-100 years". The IPCC won't venture back any further than 1950...but the blog needs to include all the warming since the LII ended...can't let any natural warming into the conversation, can we?

I agree with the scientist, you agree with the blog post that bases its conclusions on a lack of information. ("We can't explain it")

How much of the warming is anthropogenic is one of the "finer points". You trying to leave that part out? How about the debate over climate sensitivity? That's a pretty big one.

Again, most agree with the idea that some warming is due to human activity (including the skeptical scientists that alarmists attack), the debate begins from that point. Alarmists imply both that all the warming is human caused and that warming is catastrophic. Both those ideas are very much up for debate. There is a reason why the consensus survey did not bother to ask "Will the warming be catastrophic?" That's because scientists don't agree on that.

I suppose you'll ignore the fact that the main point of AGW alarmism is claiming that warming will be catastrophic and that is what all the "We must change our lifestyle now or we are doomed" is based upon. This is not about "agreeing that the earth has warmed and that man has played a role". Because we all agree on that.

I criticize the use of the word in the consensus survey where no attempt was made to clarify the term. Their use of the word was not scientific in the slightest.

I do. It's what alarmists have dismissed from the conversation since 1988. Another reason why it's obviously political.

JKD just caught himself in a rather interesting lie here. Bonus points to whoever can find it. If you have a background in statistics, you should be able to spot it pretty easily.

In the meantime, I'm off to corrupt young minds with evil science. I'll draft a detailed rebuttal when I'm sufficiently bored (and otherwise unoccupied).

 

[Hobgoblin]

Actually the word "significant" is a scientific term. It describes how strong a connection there is between two factors. A connection of 30% or less is not significant, 30% to 60% is moderately significant and 60% and up is very significant. At least, that is what I remember from my classes from ten years ago. Someone correct me if I am wrong.