Home Music Articles Forums Blog Chat More...      

add to bookmarks
Prev Topic | Next Topic

Author
Posts
(Read 3058 times)
VicDiesel
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 2961
Location: Austin, TX
 
Re:global warming
Saturday, July 29 2017 @ 07:09 PM CDT

Quote by: bronco

Well Vic, not up on this like your guys but doesn't this scientific analysis consist of computer programs that supposedly can predict climate change and they have been tweaked several times to get the results they wanted?



No. This is about analysis of the past. We have measurements of climate and we have many many many proxies, such as tree rings, air bubbles in ice, god knows what. And they all point in the same direction: temperature is going up.

Since CO2 from burning oil looks different from natural CO2, we can say that a substantial percentage of CO2 comes from us.

Any other plausible cause of temperature increase, such as solar activity or volcanoes is not enough to explain the temperature rise.

That's it. Very careful analysis of tons of measurements (including by Koch-funded climate-denying scientists) all came to the above conclusion.


That there is climate change in both directions over the centuries, I have no doubt



1. No. It's up and up and up and up. The "pause" in global warming comes from looking at very short scale. As soon as you start averaging it's up and up. And up.

2. You have no doubt based on what? There is no scientist (including Koch-funded see above) who agrees with you.


That man made creation of CO2 has caused this to accelerate in modern times is still just an unproven theory to me.



To you? Who are you? You realize that there is no one who actually understands this stuff who agrees with you? Not even Koch-funded see above.


But don't except me to be in favor of treaties that are not enforced fairly across all countries.



What do you call "fairly"? The average Kenyan has 1/20th (iirc) the carbon footprint of a Merkin. How much do you expect them to sacrifice before you will concede anything?

Anyway. Go on and keep the US dependent on 1800s technology while the Chinese lead the world into the 21st century. If you think your reasoning is even in your own self-interest you're grossly deluded.

Victor.


-- My CD.
bronco
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/31/04
Posts: 567
Location: N/A
 
Re:global warming
Saturday, July 29 2017 @ 10:07 PM CDT

I'll just address a few of these because we will just be talking at tangent to each other on the rest of it.

1. Bronco: “What a "scientist" believes is often influenced greatly by where his funding comes from.”

I often see the dismissive quotes around the word “scientist.” I happen to know a lot of scientists.

My reply: I know lots of scientists also. My father had a phd in Chemistry. All of his friends had phd's. I worked as an Accountant at one of the largest research Universities in the country and had first hand knowledge of how grants worked in funding salaries. I had lunch with professor's in the sciences who griped about how they couldn't do the kind of research they wanted to but had to follow along with what the grant expected which had strict guidelines. It was my judgement that these scientists were generally very knowledgable in their own specialties but quite a bit less so when outside their disciplines. How many scientists that are quoted as being for CO2 global warming are actually climate scientists trained in that area?

VicDiesel
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 2961
Location: Austin, TX
 
Re:global warming
Saturday, July 29 2017 @ 10:23 PM CDT

Quote by: bronco

How many scientists that are quoted as being for CO2 global warming are actually climate scientists trained in that area?



Basically everyone that studied climate science is convinced that human CO2 is the culprit.

Basically everyone that thinks otherwise has degrees in unrelated subjects like chemistry. Engineers and physicists are also big in this camp. I'm sure there is some interesting psychology to be done about why they think that, given their only marginally related background, they can outreason climatologists.

Victor.

-- My CD.
Les_Kloo
Forum Full Member


Registered: 06/24/11
Posts: 216
Location: City in My Head, USA
 
Re:global warming
Sunday, July 30 2017 @ 01:16 PM CDT

Quote by: bronco


My reply: I know lots of scientists also.




Alright, good. There’s some common ground. We both know a lot of scientists.

I’m not trying to pick on you or interrogate you, although it might come off that way. I’m genuinely curious about this distrust of scientists by so many Americans.

I have come to the conclusion that research scientists are competent and that they are honest. Forgive me if I’m misreading you, but you seem to think that they are (1) incompetent or (2) dishonest or (3) incompetent and dishonest. How did that happen, given that we both know a lot of them, and that we both have had access to the history and practice of taxpayer-funded research?


My music is much better than it sounds.
VicDiesel
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 2961
Location: Austin, TX
 
Re:global warming
Sunday, July 30 2017 @ 05:28 PM CDT

Quote by: Les_Kloo
I’m genuinely curious about this distrust of scientists by so many Americans.



As a famous Texas dentist on the school board said: "We have to stand up to experts!". Strangely enough, I don't think any of his supporters would question his expertise in dental matters.

I haven't quite figured out precisely who earns the distrust of republicans. Our whole life runs by the fruits of modern science, most of which is miles beyond their comprehension, yet they just know that the experts are wrong. I'm sure there is a Dunning-Kruger component to it, but I haven't quite figured it out.

Victor.

-- My CD.
FEEL
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/15/05
Posts: 2385
Location: N/A
 
Re:global warming
Wednesday, August 02 2017 @ 08:27 AM CDT

MikeRobinson
Forum Full Member


Registered: 08/29/11
Posts: 735
Location: Chattanooga, TN United States
 
Re:global warming
Wednesday, August 02 2017 @ 10:50 AM CDT

Quote by: FEEL
I'm amazed at how many are in denial and refuse to believe that humans have an impact on our planet.


There is a subtle but important difference between “believing that humans have an impact on our planet,” and accepting at face value the now-popular descriptions of how meaningful and all-encompassing that impact actually is.   “An inconvenient correlation,” while apparently demonstrable, does not necessarily mean that it is actually and solely responsible for all that is now being ascribed to it, and to the extent and degree stated.   There are other alternatives, and other factors, and other historical record, which are not now being brought to the table.   I cannot bring myself to accept their proposition without asking hard questions.

As a card-carrying skeptic, I am, for example, not at all persuaded that we need to be part of a treaty – costing billions of dollars a year – that is supposed to change planetary temperatures by one or two degrees over the course of twenty years or more.   (That’s an awful lot of billions, between now and then.)   And, I am unpersuaded that it will achieve anything so long as nations like America can pay China to do their polluting for them, thousands of miles away yet still connected to America by atmosphere.

As a card-carrying cynic, “I think that there’s more gravy than grave” in the proposition of the Paris Accords, in the form of vast amounts of money, much of which (of course) Uncle Sugar is expected to pay.   I think that each nation can bear its own responsibility and do so within the framework of its own domestic system of government.   And, let its own money stay right at home, where it certainly can be spent on the environment, but under the auspices of its government and accountable to its people.   Whenever vast amounts of loosely-accountable money are within reach, “the mice will play,” and they just might invent reasons to do so.   Thirty years hence, and after vast expense, we might well have nothing to show for it, but all that money will surely be long gone.   Human beings are like that.   Very few problems are solved by throwing money at them.
VicDiesel
Forum Full Member


Registered: 02/14/06
Posts: 2961
Location: Austin, TX
 
Re:global warming
Wednesday, August 02 2017 @ 08:48 PM CDT

Quote by: MikeRobinson
  “An inconvenient correlation,” while apparently demonstrable, does not necessarily mean that it is actually and solely responsible for all that is now being ascribed to it, and to the extent and degree stated.  



You keep saying that. Why don't you address my point that there is essentially no scientist who agrees with you, including oil companies and Koch-funded climate deniers?


There are other alternatives, and other factors, and other historical record, which are not now being brought to the table.   I cannot bring myself to accept their proposition without asking hard questions.



There are no alternatives and factors that have not been investigated and discarded.

"without asking hard question". Go ahead and ask. But be sure to do your homework and don't ask questions that have already been answered.


a treaty – costing billions of dollars a year



How many billions? Compared to for instance 600B for the military? And what if it prevents Miami, New Orleans, New York from disappearing under the waves by the end of the century? Not worth it?


Thirty years hence, and after vast expense, we might well have nothing to show for it,



Except for clean energy, a more sustainable economy, fewer deaths from pollution.

I agree. Money wasted.

Victor.

-- My CD.
FEEL
Forum Full Member


Registered: 05/15/05
Posts: 2385
Location: N/A
 
Re:global warming
Wednesday, August 02 2017 @ 08:55 PM CDT

Quote by: MikeRobinson

As a card-carrying skeptic, I am, for example, not at all persuaded that we need to be part of a treaty – costing billions of dollars a year – that is supposed to change planetary temperatures by one or two degrees over the course of twenty years or more.



Just for the awareness alone it's worth being part of a treaty. Spending and raising money to benefit our planet is a great investments for the future of mankind. People get caught up in the false propaganda so the big oil companies and manufactures can sway towards deregulation. This is also a political issue where you have parties that want to designate funds for the future. Some representatives want to steer it toward their own benefit others want to make a difference for all. As far as Gore... it has been a big GOP ploy to make the other party or politician look foolish, yes, I applaud him for trying to make a difference. Maybe the facts will never change the stubborn ones in the US but it does appears to have had an effect abroad.
 
KCsGROOVE
Forum Regular Poster


Registered: 02/11/08
Posts: 109
Location: , Netherlands
 
Re:global warming
Sunday, August 06 2017 @ 07:24 AM CDT

If it weren't for the dykes that we built half of my country would be washed away by the sea.. Millions in my country live below sealevel, something that will be hard to comprehend for a lot of people.
So I think it's criminal, all those lobbyists in America, who get paid by the oil industry, denying there's global warming. They probably live high and dry themselves... We have to spend billions and billions to raise our dykes in order to stay safe from the rising waters...
We have to act now! So hard to take a moron like Trump serious....
KC

every note counts