AGW Theory - Discussion

Hillary said last night in the debate exactly what climate change is about.

She said she wanted to use the threat of climate change as an opportunity to rebuild our economy with green energy investments.

Climate change is about money.

Let's stop being naïve.

Another badly informed poster approaches.
Climate change is not up to debate AT ALL. Only human impact on its speed is and that is what we've been talking about so many pages(or tried to).

But like I said before, whether agw is real or not I don't care, as I am for progress which is gradually moving past fossil fuels.

Your opinion about how big they are would be.... Here is an example.

Imagine we are discussing the pyramids and you said "The pyramids seem really small to me... I don't think they are such a big deal"

and I said "oh yeah? how long ago did you seem them in person?" and you said Oh... never I heard someone on the radio say they were small and so I just believed it...

The phrasing of your sentence makes the effect of CO2 becoming greater as temperatures rise, not the effect of the environment. It's likely that you meant both and regardless of which interpretation I would attack you would then shift the meaning to be the other.

The multiplicative effect of CO2 is in question and has been in question since it was first postulated. It's never been proved, either experimentally in a lab or through math / statistics. Instead a constant was used in it's place and just assumed to be correct. This method is acceptable in theoretical physics or other fields which deal with extremely large ranges of uncertainty and who's models are frequently changing and never assumed to be entirely correct. It's when AGW folk start saying that absolutely know such an assumed value to be true, and that we need to immediately stop everything and do what they say that things become unethical.

Of course you guys go off the deep end as I'm challenging your form of a religion, and then make all sorts of personal attacks that I just point and laugh at.

You're the only one using strawmen, ad hominem and ab auctoritate Saevel, you really need some self reflection..

You simply made a wrong assumption. I mean what I say not what you imagine I might be implying.

Warming => extreme weather. Thus if CO2 causes warming that's the result we have. And know why I said that? *gasp* cause YOU moved the goalpost to breathable air -.-

The whole argument just seemed biased to me. The Pacific Garbage Patch not even remotely as garbagey as the media has portrayed it? HEARSAY (despite the fact that even the National freaking Ocean Service has refuted it). Is manmade climate change a serious problem? GOSPEL TRUTH (despite the fact that nobody here is qualified enough to make that conclusion on their own).

At least I can see politicians and propaganda for what they are. The climate constantly changes. No ***. I live in a region of Pennsylvania that used to be a tropical rain forest before it was covered by a 2 miles thick sheet of ice.

Don't call me badly informed. It is why the "global warming" machine changed the name to "climate change" when everyone saw through the complete lie of global warming. Now every season, every weather event, every drought, every heat wave, every blizzard; they can point and say "LOOK CLIMATE CHANGE!" INVEST TAX DOLLARS IN OUR BUSINESSES! ITS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT!

The climate is changing because of warming of the atmosphere, like I explained before.

The only thing you can challenge is humanity's effect on this process, and someone more qualified than me can counter your points about that.

But if you wanna try to make an argument at least make the right ones.

If that was true then I'd be all behind it, though we probably have another century before we have the ability to create something with a better energy density. Unfortunately that's just a pretty excuse for the real purpose of shifting power into the hands of progressives so they can implement grand social schemes.


You do realize the purpose of progressiveism is to realize the enlightenment that is the Communistic ideal. It's a ideology that demonizes all things Capitalistic as being inherently oppressive and morally corrupt while praising Communal ownership as inherently equal and morally superior.

Sounds good in theory but in reality it's the reverse that's true. Communal, otherwise known as government, ownership / management of property is inherently oppressive and corrupt as the humans responsible for doing the managing will abuse their position and create an oligarchy / aristocracy with them as the elite. Furthermore they will then insulate their position by creating a system where the non-elites could never rise to their position. In capitalism the owners of the capital also form an oligarchy / aristocracy but due to market forces they are reliant on the non-elites to stay in power.

But hey Marx / Lenin inspired European socialist = good right.

HANG ON!

NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!! WOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Ok...now post an article that back ups this claim.

so we could consider it as evidence to back up your statement...

I don't know why we're talking about communism now but anyway...I believe the utopian type of communism would only work in a world that you start from 0, like on a new planet with no economy to start from. To apply it in the current world you'd need a complete worldwide reboot, coupled with a massive curbing of population...which are both not nice things.

Yeah Pleebo! quit shifting all the power to implement you diabolical schemes you ***....


saevel do you ever read the ***you post?

I don't know where we're going, but I'm sure we'll get to Hitler eventually.

It's designed to be as they do not wish to enter into an actual position based debate. Doing so would open themselves up to refutation and attack, which if they were not 100% accurate could lead to someone else using an emotional attack on their social status. Instead you build in the assumption of your inherent correctness and therefor the conclusion of the opponents inherent incorrectness into the argument itself.

Anyhow I can seem them trying to pull the context off to the side into a territory they could ambush someone in. If it doesn't go as planned I could see a push for a lock.

The illusion of climate change is about money and power. I don't think what he said was that confusing.

Three things:

1) You're talking about a Pennsylvania that existed in completely different geologic eras
2) Global warming is an incredibly misleading name, which is why you don't hear it used as often as climate change, which more accurately describes the symptoms.
3) Consider the fact that we currently subsidize fossil fuels (which have other pollutants aside from CO2), which is good for direct economic purposes but has all sorts of negative externalities. From a purely objective economic standpoint, it would make more sense to tax (or at least drop the subsidies on) fossil fuels and subsidize/focus on more advanced forms of energy where it is feasible.

It wouldn't work even if you started from zero.

It presumes that humans are emotionless rational beings with zero self interest. That is an incorrect assumption. Humans are inherently self interested and desire to advantage themselves and their family / tribe above others. That desire is the critical flaw in every socialist system and the reason why capitalism, though itself flawed, works so well. Your "worldwide reboot" was attempted by the Soviets along with massive curbing of the populations. It didn't work out for them, and thankfully they didn't get very far before they collapsed. The Khmer Rouge did it the most completely, and boy was that ever a disaster of a social experiment, 2.2 million people killed out of a 8 million population before outside forces put a stop to it.

/sigh, here, but that's not the point. It doesn't make any sense to freak out about the pacific garbage patch statements (with reference to quantity) and call them all hearsay, when a group devoted to protecting the oceans comes out and says the same thing. In the meantime, you don't seem to have a problem with a group taking a side in a much more complex issue that is far more difficult to correctly quantify.

If you would like to continue the discussion about political systems we'd have to move it to random p&r, it's too off topic to continue here.

No it's global warming, trying to obfuscate it with careful phrasing doesn't work. You can't argue yourself correct.

The entire basis of AGW is on the presumption that adding more CO2 then 180ppm into the atmosphere cause's a snowball effect that superheats the planet until it burns up. Yes that actually happens in the models when you keep raising the CO2 levels to prehistoric 4000 ~ 5000ppm amounts. This super-heating effect is caused by a positive feedback loop where additional temperature causes H2O to vaporize from the Ocean and enter into the atmosphere. The actual mechanic is a literal "X amount of CO2 cause's Y amount of H2O" line of code put into the models. H2O's effect on the world temperature is mostly well known (some interesting studies being done on cloud formations in both the upper and lower atmosphere), its the primary greenhouse gas and responsible for ~95% of the effect. Raising H2O vapor will most certainly raise the worlds temperature, just like reducing it cause's an ice age.

The problem with their theory is that feedback loop has never been proven, either experimentally or via statistical analysis. It's always just assumed to exist.

More CO2 => More H2O => More CO2 => Even more H2O => World burns

That is the original concept. They have since dropped the requirement for more CO2 by raising the sensitivity.

Everything else is just more political *** to try to garner more political support since the world failed to warm as they claimed it would. They cried wolf very loudly and then tried to hard sell the solution. The wolf never arrived so instead they are claiming the pack of wolves are sitting outside invisible and that if we don't buy their solution the wolves will viciously attack the sheep.

I suggest you re-read your link. What it's saying isn't at all different from what we've been saying (that it isn't literally a floating junkyard, but rather a region of relatively high plastic concentration).

FROM YOUR ARTICLE

"Regardless of the exact size, mass, and location of the "garbage patch," man made debris does not belong in our oceans and waterways and must be addressed."

You realize that NOAA still considers the ocean garbage a serious issue, right? They're not saying "oh who cares, it's not garbage island", but just reasserting that there's a common misconception about it. It's a significant threat to many marine species.

Somewhat related, before they implemented a more effective wastewater treatment facility, Boston Harbor had considerable amounts of garbage and literal ***within it. You could run along the beaches and see used tampon applicators and toilet paper on the shore. It's in pretty good shape now though.

I know exactly what it said. It has nothing to do with what I'm arguing, but I'm used to that. I try to keep my arguments to specifics and people end up fighting with me as if I'm making broader applications.


And you missed the point again. Lovely. And so did Jeanpaul. Wow, you guys are on a roll.

So your point is not that the garbage thing is not a serious problem but only that it doesn't look the way most people think it looks like?

And this is important why..?

Define relatively.

A value of 1 is infinitely higher then 0 when compared using the term relatively. If 0 particles of plastic is the base amount, then any amount higher then 0 would be relatively high.

There is most certainly an area of "high" concentration of plastic particles. Those particles are incredibly small, most too small for you to even see. They are spread out over a very large space, so large that you could swim right through it and not even know your there.

This is well known and mostly the result of either international shipping dumping garbage overboard during passage or third world countries dumping garbage into the ocean in an area where the currents drag it out into deep ocean. Yet it's frequently used as an argument against plastic usage in first world nations. Many here even attempted to use it as an emotional plea to argue for the support of regulation CO2 per AGW theory. The pacific garbage patch has nothing to do with CO2...

Then what were you trying to argue? If 3 people felt the need to "correct" you, then maybe you weren't clear enough.

Have you seen it?

After a while of being repeatedly told "you're killing the planet, you should feel bad, now open up your wallet." One inevitably has to question what it is being sold.

1) And the thick sheet of ice you left out?
2) Climate Change is even more misleading. It encompasses absolutely everything that we experience.
3) Like I said, climate change is about money.

Ok I went to backread, but this isn't why the pacific garbage patch was mentioned. It was in response to Nausi proclaiming(through sarcasm) that dumping garbage into the sea is no big deal(lol). Then this caused a dramatic argument about how big the patch is and what would it look like on pictures.