I have to say, that even if Global Warming were proven beyond any doubt to be false, that would still not vindicate the opposition. The biggest differentiating factor between the "Sides" is how one arrives at their own conclusion.
The old proverb I think is a "A broken clock is right twice a day."
Let's see if Alti takes this to mean I would ignore proof of falsehood. Giving a 5:1 ratio on "Yes", place your bets.
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
|
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
So, I can't honestly say I've read every page because my sense of self-preservation is prevailing. Have we actually discussed what should be done about potential climate change or are we still worked up over whether or not it's man-made?
Bahamut.Ravael said: » So, I can't honestly say I've read every page because my sense of self-preservation is prevailing. Have we actually discussed what should be done about potential climate change or are we still worked up over whether or not it's man-made? That's the key point. Some people are making ridiculous amounts of money by prolonging the "discussion" over whether AGC is real and delaying the "discussion" of how to address it. Bahamut.Ravael said: » So, I can't honestly say I've read every page because my sense of self-preservation is prevailing. Have we actually discussed what should be done about potential climate change or are we still worked up over whether or not it's man-made? I don't think so, any time we get close, Alti "Follows the money" and derails it into an Al Gore/Carbon Credits tantrum. Also, there's the huge problem of how to deal with the developing world (China, India, etc) Is it fair to them to bring in some sweeping global changes that would impact their ability to industrialize and be competitive in the global market? How much moral high ground is there when the wealthiest nations are trying to dictate how poorer nations can utilize their natural resources? (inb4 too late brah.) I have no shame in claiming ignorance when it comes to the subject, but am I wrong in thinking that we would be a lot better off redirecting the millions (billions?) of dollars that fund climate change studies and instead fund technological research aimed at making alternative energy sources competitive in the free market?
Do we really need to pay that many people to tell us it's getting warmer outside? I know it's not quite that simple, but still....
[+]
I actually don't think the cost of research is particularly high, certainly not high enough that redirecting it would make any particularly large impact.
Most alternative energy solutions are viable in the free market, always contextually sensitive though. For example, Solar in Southern California can take homes completely off the grid, and even sell back parts of the electric bill. More often than not, financing for a Solar System comes out to be less per month than an average electric bill out here. But on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have corruption in "Green Energy" Same as anywhere else. There's wind farms that are actually a net loss in energy, and actual increase CO2 Emissions. How is that possible? Because the heaters that keep the turbines warm enough to function use more energy than the turbine generates. It seems that there are a lot of "green" technologies that look good in theory (and to the average consumer) but end up being more trouble than the non-green things they're designed to replace. If there were an easy fix I'm sure we wouldn't be here discussing it right now, though.
It all has to come down to the free market in the end. Sure, you can tax Americans into oblivion for not being "green" and throw out a bunch of other ridiculous legislation aimed at curbing our carbon footprint, but even if we managed to eliminate it, according to climatologists we're all screwed anyway thanks to China and India and the like, so what's the point? We need technology that's cheap, efficient, and attractive to the world at large if we're ever going to change anything. Heck, we could even get climate change deniers on board if the technology didn't suck and it was easy on the wallet. Win-win.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » It all has to come down to the free market in the end. Sure, you can tax Americans into oblivion for not being "green" and throw out a bunch of other ridiculous legislation aimed at curbing our carbon footprint, but even if we managed to eliminate it, according to climatologists we're all screwed anyway thanks to China and India and the like, so what's the point? We need technology that's cheap, efficient, and attractive to the world at large if we're ever going to change anything. Heck, we could even get climate change deniers on board if the technology didn't suck and it was easy on the wallet. Win-win.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ha, I didn't even notice his formatting of my post in his quote (probably because I was looking at it on my phone). That's rich.  The next episode of Cosmos promises some climate change shenanigans. Should be interesting to see if the right-wing tantrums against that can match the impotent rage of creationists over earlier content. Interesting you think we live or have ever lived in a democracy. Odin.Zicdeh said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » So, I can't honestly say I've read every page because my sense of self-preservation is prevailing. Have we actually discussed what should be done about potential climate change or are we still worked up over whether or not it's man-made? I don't think so, any time we get close, Alti "Follows the money" and derails it into an Al Gore/Carbon Credits tantrum. Also, there's the huge problem of how to deal with the developing world (China, India, etc) Is it fair to them to bring in some sweeping global changes that would impact their ability to industrialize and be competitive in the global market? How much moral high ground is there when the wealthiest nations are trying to dictate how poorer nations can utilize their natural resources? (inb4 too late brah.) Actually you guys bring it up, I just go with it. Bahamut.Ravael said: » I have no shame in claiming ignorance when it comes to the subject, but am I wrong in thinking that we would be a lot better off redirecting the millions (billions?) of dollars that fund climate change studies and instead fund technological research aimed at making alternative energy sources competitive in the free market? Do we really need to pay that many people to tell us it's getting warmer outside? I know it's not quite that simple, but still.... Before this gets bolded and italicized in future quotes by certain other posters, uncertainty is not referring to if the climate is changing or if human activity is responsible. There is little uncertainty about those. Uncertainty on the regional level, that is the level where climate change is most relevant to our everyday lives, is, in many places, quite high and this makes planning too abstract and difficult. So, yeah, it's not a bad idea to begin investing more in other energy industries but, realistically, implementation of those are more of a long-term goal whereas regional and local mitigation strategies are more immediate. And for mitigation to be most successful and more efficient we really do need more research that tells us it's getting warmer outside. Bahamut.Ravael said: » It all has to come down to the free market in the end. Sure, you can tax Americans into oblivion for not being "green" and throw out a bunch of other ridiculous legislation aimed at curbing our carbon footprint, but even if we managed to eliminate it, according to climatologists we're all screwed anyway thanks to China and India and the like, so what's the point? We need technology that's cheap, efficient, and attractive to the world at large if we're ever going to change anything. Heck, we could even get climate change deniers on board if the technology didn't suck and it was easy on the wallet. Win-win. Climate change deniers is a bad term, I have no doubt the climate is changing. Is it changing because of man? Show me real proof, not this *** they keep trying to pass off. I don't think any average person has any love for big oil but unless the price's continue to rise and green energy gets cheaper. Nothing will change. What ever happened to bio-diesel and ethanol? It was getting kinda big 5-6 years ago what changed? I used to be able to buy Bio-diesel and have it delivered to my farm way cheaper than regular diesel, not anymore... Ethanol (E85) works in most vehicles now but the places to fill up with it are far and few. Not to mention motors have existed since before gasoline that worked on ethanol. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » I have no shame in claiming ignorance when it comes to the subject, but am I wrong in thinking that we would be a lot better off redirecting the millions (billions?) of dollars that fund climate change studies and instead fund technological research aimed at making alternative energy sources competitive in the free market? Do we really need to pay that many people to tell us it's getting warmer outside? I know it's not quite that simple, but still.... Before this gets bolded and italicized in future quotes by certain other posters, uncertainty is not referring to if the climate is changing or if human activity is responsible. There is little uncertainty about those. Uncertainty on the regional level, that is the level where climate change is most relevant to our everyday lives, is, in many places, quite high and this makes planning too abstract and difficult. So, yeah, it's not a bad idea to begin investing more in other energy industries but, realistically, implementation of those are more of a long-term goal whereas regional and local mitigation strategies are more immediate. And for mitigation to be most successful and more efficient we really do need more research that tells us it's getting warmer outside. All these researchers and decades of reports have gotten us exactly nothing. They can't predict the weather let alone the climate, more MASS research is not gonna change that. Thousands of "climate scientist" wasting tax payer dollars is insane. My term "climate change denier" wasn't specifically targeted at you. I'm a skeptic about man-made climate change myself, but if someone showed me definitive proof that we're responsible for it I wouldn't be surprised.
Altimaomega said: » All these researchers and decades of reports have gotten us exactly nothing. They can't predict the weather let alone the climate, more MASS research is not gonna change that. Thousands of "climate scientist" wasting tax payer dollars is insane. Bahamut.Ravael said: » My term "climate change denier" wasn't specifically targeted at you. I'm a skeptic about man-made climate change myself, but if someone showed me definitive proof that we're responsible for it I wouldn't be surprised. Proof is there. Ignoring it doesn't make you a skeptic.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ha, I didn't even notice his formatting of my post in his quote (probably because I was looking at it on my phone). That's rich. The next episode of Cosmos promises some climate change shenanigans. Should be interesting to see if the right-wing tantrums against that can match the impotent rage of creationists over earlier content. Interesting you think we live or have ever lived in a democracy. I didn't get that impression from the quote. Democracy is more than a government, it's an idea, specifically the idea that 1 voice = 1 vote. And the quote is specifically referring to the fact that democracy as an idea doesn't make a distinction between stupidity and ignorance. Of course, the subtlety of literature eluding you when you've got an agenda to push isn't surprising. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Proof is there. Ignoring it doesn't make you a skeptic. You speak of the scientific method and yet you believe there is proof without a controlled experiment. What you do is analyze trends and find correlations. Don't lecture me on what skepticism is. If I accepted data without a thorough analysis I'd be a disgrace to my field anyway, so call it what you will.
[+]
What do you mean a controlled experiment? Go through the guidelines of that process within the context of climate science. Because there's mountains of control data from pre-industrial times.
[+]
In order to definitively prove climate change is man made you would have to stop all forms of human producing pollution for a specified amount of time and then compare it to data of the opposite. Otherwise your data is at best relative to the current situation.
And even if you were to pull off such a feat, you would then have to be able to reproduce those results multiple times each time a new solution or a new theory is introduced. Kinda like trying to prove god exists, at best you're just trying to prove a negative. IE. reducing human made carbon emissions will make the climate go back to the way it was. To what extent is your goal with reversing climate change? Can you reserve it or are you just simply trying to reduce it's impact? To what extent can reducing human made pollution actually affect the climate? Odin.Zicdeh said: » What do you mean a controlled experiment? Go through the guidelines of that process within the context of climate science. Because there's mountains of control data from pre-industrial times. Odin.Zicdeh said: » What do you mean a controlled experiment? Go through the guidelines of that process within the context of climate science. Because there's mountains of control data from pre-industrial times. Yes. Because there is absolutely no possibility for confounding variables when comparing the earth today to pre-industrial times. You and Pleebo can go take a beginner statistics class and maybe one in design of experiments. After that, we can chat. Edit: That came off more condescending than intended. A controlled experiment, basically, is one where you attempt to remove all possible confounding variables so that you can isolate the variables of interest. In the case of planet Earth, that's essentially impossible since you can't provide a "control" earth to test against an independent variable earth. Hence why causation is nearly impossible to prove. The best you can do is scale it down to a smaller experimental area that's designed to resemble the variable you'd like to test. Even then, you couldn't reasonably imply causation to something as complex as a planet. Anthropogenic warming is a testable hypothesis.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas: testable Human contribution to current CO2 concentrations: testable Planet's accumulation of heat: testable Anthropogenic forcings vs natural ones: testable If you want to play the authority card, I took those classes and I'm familiar with the literature. Can you say the same? 32 pages and we finally get to the source!
Ok let's drop our pants and get this over with. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Anthropogenic warming is a testable hypothesis. CO2 as a greenhouse gas: testable Human contribution to current CO2 concentrations: testable Planet's accumulation of heat: testable Anthropogenic forcings vs natural ones: testable If you want to play the authority card, I took those classes and I'm familiar with the literature. Can you say the same? Great, we have four things to work with. Now see if you can provide a list of the possible confounding variables. You should be able to name at least 100. Natural variation, solar activity, aerosols, albedo, cloud cover, water vapor, urban heat islands, non-anthropogenic sources of GH gases, geothermal activity, atmospheric degradation, and uh... I'm spent.
Only so many factors can realistically affect the climate on such a large scale and these have been quantified and ruled out as the significant underlying driving force. There's enough information freely available that a presumably interested mind, such as yours, should have no troubles finding source materials for independent verification, but I guess you haven't gotten around to it yet. Being contrary is not an argument by itself. Until you have something other than vague disagreement, you can skip the pretense of objectivity. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Zicdeh said: » What do you mean a controlled experiment? Go through the guidelines of that process within the context of climate science. Because there's mountains of control data from pre-industrial times. Yes. Because there is absolutely no possibility for confounding variables when comparing the earth today to pre-industrial times. You and Pleebo can go take a beginner statistics class and maybe one in design of experiments. After that, we can chat. Edit: That came off more condescending than intended. A controlled experiment, basically, is one where you attempt to remove all possible confounding variables so that you can isolate the variables of interest. In the case of planet Earth, that's essentially impossible since you can't provide a "control" earth to test against an independent variable earth. Hence why causation is nearly impossible to prove. The best you can do is scale it down to a smaller experimental area that's designed to resemble the variable you'd like to test. Even then, you couldn't reasonably imply causation to something as complex as a planet. Your edit is even more condescending. Plus, it missed the point 100% of what my challenge was. Define what an controlled experiment would entail within the parameters of the climate change discussion, as Pleebo did. I just have to ask, do you have a Ph.D or something? Every morning I see this thread bumped up from the dead.
How to stop Global Warming: Step 1: Nuke the world. Step 2: Watch nukes cause Nuclear Winter. Step 3: Get whats left of humanity together to yell at each other over what caused Global Cooling. How to stop human accelerated Climate change: Step 1: Kill all humans. Both problems solved. Queue Guile music. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.