AGW Theory - Discussion

Yes climate might change all the time but the speed at which this happens is very important for the ecosystem. Downplaying it means being misinformed.

Come back when you want to discuss manmade contribution.

NO!

I included the parenthetical statement on purpose.


It isn't. My response was to Nikolce's statement about hearsay, and why it was stupid in a thread about AGW. He also made the comment about "have you seen it?", which would only matter in relation to the QUANTITY of material there. Just seeing the stupid place(s) wouldn't tell you if the practically invisible material there is a problem or not.

Multiple posts on different subjects over a few years worth of time.

The pacific garbage patch was brought in as an attempt at insulting one of the skeptics in a derogatory manor.

Person A => I don't believe in AGW theory
Person B => *Heh* pollution is bad, like the pacific garbage patch
Person A => Dude it's not even that big a deal
Crowd of people => Boo's Person A for making a politically incorrect statement.

Person B made an illogical statement in an attempt to pull person A away from direct AGW discussion and into a different area where they could be attacked. Person A fell for the trap and switched to discussing the pacific garbage patch. Person B then attempts a ridicule attack on Person A in order to cause them to lose social points.

That is a very common tactic, super religious people, and politicians use it all the time. It's illogical but very effective at causing someone to lose face in front of a group. It's a more sophisticated version of "your mom" which is used by juveniles across the world.

Person A => I don't believe in AGW theory
Person B => *Heh* Your mom
Person A => Dude, what does my mom have to do with this
Crowd of people => Snickers at Person B's apparent wit.

great, then let's pretend I'm one of your "fence sitters" that hasn't already formulated an opinion on AGW theory.

Make your case.

Assuming your talking to Raevel or Nausi because that has been my primary point this entire time. The manmade component is measured in CO2 addition to the atmosphere vs world temperatures. There is a very loose correlation but no direct evidence of causation. Deep history has CO2 trailing world wide temperature increases while recent history, 80~100 years, has it leading slightly. This makes for good science.

Unfortunately political powers got involved early on due to CO2's connection to every facet of human existence and it's regulation means absolute power of those humans. This has caused the result of the science to be predisposed prior to the actual science being conducted. If you look for something hard enough, you will always find it, whether it exists or not. You can't prove a negative and thus it's not possible to prove there isn't causation, only that there isn't sufficient certainty to invoke great alarm. Just as you can't disprove the existence of "God", only provide evidence that it's highly unlikely for a "God" to exist.

All I am asking you to do is consider the source of your "Knowledge" about the pacific garbage patch or anything else..

I ADMITTEDLY HAVE A LOT OF PERSONAL BIAS AGAINST POLLUTION IN GENERAL which comes from growing up in ohio, watching rivers catch on fire, losing two girlfriends to inoperable brain cancer before I was sixteen, and working on a superfund clean up site. I have personal hands on experience.

so when people say "I don't think XYZ is a big deal" I suspect they just haven't witnessed it, which in this case they haven't.

So where do they get their opinions from?

1) I didn't leave it out, both were in completely different geologic eras, which changed at varying rates, to which some species could adapt and others could not. The point is that a quicker change brings about a greater threat. It's not like they were both moments in your own life that you dealt with by putting on snow pants or short shorts.
2) Consider that a "climate" refers to a regular pattern of weather and conditions in an area. The change is that these patterns shift in location/frequency/intensity. We have been observing changes in the form of storm activity, animal and plant seasonal activity, temperatures, glacial ice, and more. What's misleading about that?
3) I think we all can agree that money is a major driving force here. I did want to expand on the economic logic behind taking action to mitigate climate change.

You wouldn't happen to know any of the stock ticker symbols of the companies that would benefit most from climate change?

maybe it's just my evil nature talking......
but shouldn't we move smartly to make some money off it?

Well, that's the problem with green energy. It's not lucrative enough. Even if we managed to completely greenify the entire U.S. at the expense of money and efficiency, we would have to convince the rest of the world that rainbows and unicorn glitter are more important than cold hard cash. We can argue until we're blue about whether or not AGW is a thing, but it honestly doesn't matter if we can't get everyone on board to change (hint: we definitely can't). The one and only way to do that is make something better and cheaper than what we can do with the stuff we're pulling out of the planet. You may sway some people with words, but money is the only language that everyone listens to.

But there are even worldwide agreements in place for a progressive CO2 emissions reductions..

Other countries have already figured out that the cost of inaction outweighs the cost of green investments. Fortunately for them, many of them don't have to deal with deniers blocking progress.

Commies!!!!

Where do you get this emotional drivel?

Other countries? Guise, we can't let other countries show us up, we need to keep up with the Chinas.

And look at where that has gotten us. We're still smack dab in the crossroads between the lands of Whining, Gloom, and Doom. Hurray for "progress".

Your statement directly contradicts Aman's statement that it's "all about money", not to be confused with ice cube's statement on life in general being about *** and money...

so which is it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

The 97% figure, though often quoted, is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation by a clearly partisan researcher. This is statistics, not science.

Every knows statistics can be manipulated... but few actually go and check IF they were. it all depends if its telling you want you want to hear or not.

I'm no math genius but wouldn't that make it 50% wrong?

According to his bio on forbes he's the head of the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign, so he might be slightly biased somehow.

Green alternatives are not as energy dense as their carbon based alternatives, therefore they aren't as profitable in a free market.

That doesn't change the fact that 22 billion dollars are spent on climate change every year by the government.

Are "emotional arguments" the new thing now to accuse of everyone now? Well, at least it's different then "hypocrite".

Yes, other countries. China has more fully come on board since that was published.
He has a point that many people who throw out that statistic don't know where it comes from (Seha does, however), but his interpretation of the paper's results is flawed. Much like the people here who don't get it, there was an implicit and explicit categorization of statements regarding man-made climate change that were used to derive the findings. Not every paper will explicitly say that humans have cause CC because it's such a fundamental statement among climate science that it doesn't need to be.

Well, I'm not Aman, so I don't see why that matters. It's not a perfect contradiction anyway, because I think some people see the narrative as attempting to feed an inferior industry through lies/deception. I just think that it should be more lucrative on its own merits, beating out the competition through ingenuity, efficiency, and price.

The only way to not have a bias is to not have an opinion or not be informed.

The 97% statistic COMES from a guy who runs http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Its source, John Cook, is biased. That is why you check the DATA.

Read the whole article.
The statistic was deliberately manipulated. Scientists whose paper's John Cook referenced are writing in to say their data was misrepresented.

Energy density is important, true, but you gotta factor in the cost of procuring the resources and any refinement methods, plus the cost of creating/operating/maintaining the facilities. You'd also want to factor in externalities, such as the impacts of mining/drilling, and pollution from combustion.

And you've checked the DATA?

What was manipulated?

Bias is such a lazy argument. Cook is a climate scientist. The article writer, for all we know, has no science background. It's easy to accuse someone of bias when you don't want to argue any facts.

I understand corporate shills. I'm one myself.... I work for an evil company that sells only heartache and misery and I find myself lying all time...

I suppose I am most upset that none of my techniques work half as well as the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign seem to....

Also, I don't want to be the last jackass clinging to his Untied Chlorofluorocarbons Industries stock when the crap hits the fan....

So are you going to give up some hot stock tips?!? or just sit there regurgitating stale bile you heard from glen beck!?

if your not here to share insider trading information...then what the hell good are you!?

of course!

you look like a particularly smart fellow....have you ever considered bridge ownership?

Reminds me of this ad I found on a job ads website when I was hunting for summer jobs a couple of years ago...was something like this

"Looking for someone who can build a bridge. I am not interested in anything else, ONLY A BRIDGE! Great discretion necessary."

Always left me wondering where this secret bridge would lead...

It's easy to say the cost of inaction is far greater when they put a price tag on inaction of one hundred billion million trillion dollars and everyone dies. Bernie Sanders actually said last night that the world will be inhabitable for our children. If you want to make America inhabitable for our children then elect Bernie Sanders and the 60 trillion dollars in debt that follows in eight years.