Global Warming = A JOKE!!

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Here's another version of your chart that shows temperature changes in degrees C instead of ppm O18 isotopes. Notice that period you talk about is roughly 8C warmer than it is now. So how do you conclude that a cold planet led to the emergence of primates?

But I do like your chart, I'm bookmarking it. Thanks!

I didn't say "cold", I said "cooling" - please don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't say that a cooling planet led to the emergence of primates - you'll note the use of the word "coincidence"?

But I'll be more than happy to demonstrate how one lead to the other once you explain how the cold weather caused the Black Death (I think globalisation of trade had more to do with it, but I'm interested to hear your ideas)? I think that's only fair, don't you? After all, you made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about the Holocene epoch which you implied were caused directly by cold temperatures, so you ought to go first.

Why yes, it gets cold in winter still dufus

Onlyme,

(1) Thanks for responding. I accept your point on "emerging" and "prospering". (As a lawyer I sometimes descend into tedious analysis of semantics!)

(2) I don't think we really want to get into a large debate over discussing BRM's comment about "humans doing better in warmer climates". He initially made that comment in passing and I don't think it is the crux of the matter. I'll let him respond. I don't think you've showed that anything he claimed is false however and I'll try and show that. Let me know if you don't think I've succeeded.

(3) I won't discuss evolution with you because I'd be astonished if you or I or BRM have a difference of views here. I'm sure you and BRM know more than me about it. I don't think it has a great deal of relevance here.

(4) You made the point that there is a range of acceptable temperatures in which our species developed. This is clearly true: we can imagine a world so cold that all humans died or a world so hot that all humans died. We agree on this. We can call the limits of the range (a) to denote coldest limit and (b) to denote hottest limit. I wonder if you can answer this question: "what actual numbers do (a) and (b) denote?" You might know more about this than me. I simply observe humanity prospering in a variety of different climates, from harsh Siberian winters to the perpetual Summer of the equator. (My running has not been prospering this Winter in Britain - the coldest Winter that I can remember - but that's another story.)

(5) Within the range of temperatures/climates in which humans can live (the range from (a) to (b)), there are no doubt better ones, in the middle of the range and worse ones, at the edges of the range. We might even posit that there is a hypothetical ideal temperature for humanity, in which it best prospers! You and BRM might disagree on where that sweet spot lies, but I think you're both essentially saying the same thing: he says at temperature (x) our species prospers while you say it prospers at temperature (y). Both of you should suggest actual numbers for (x) and (y) to see if you actually disagree here or not.

(6) More importantly, where are we now? Is the temperature/climate of the globe warmer than your (y)? Do please answer! And is there a risk that climate change causes it to go beyond (b)? And what should we do about it?

only me wrote:

I didn't say "cold", I said "cooling" - please don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't say that a cooling planet led to the emergence of primates - you'll note the use of the word "coincidence"?

But I'll be more than happy to demonstrate how one lead to the other once you explain how the cold weather caused the Black Death (I think globalisation of trade had more to do with it, but I'm interested to hear your ideas)? I think that's only fair, don't you? After all, you made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about the Holocene epoch which you implied were caused directly by cold temperatures, so you ought to go first.

Onlyme,

(1) I'm struggling to understand your argument here. Are you saying that a cooling planet led to the emergence of the primates? I think that's what you're saying - do please correct me if I have misrepresented you. If so, that doesn't necessarily contradict what BRM wrote.

(2) Another way of writing your argument is that a movement from temperature (z) to temperature (y) (where (z > y)) caused the emergence of the primates. If (z) and (y) both fall within BRM's definition of "warm" then you can both be correct at the same time.

(3) Also, what is the relevance of your argument for the current situation which the world faces? Please let me know if you think it has any relevance. Do you think we should try and make the planet go from (z) to (y) again? Do please explain the implications of your argument - none are apparent to me.

Deleuze,

(1) Thank you for responding. I need to go running now so I will try and respond properly later. You have argued that trusting climatologists is reasonable. I don't disagree. My argument will be that not trusting climatologists is also reasonable. Note a couple of points: (i) it is possible for there to be two opposing views and for them both to be reasonable; and (ii) just because I don't trust climatologists doesn't mean I necessarily trust someone else.

(2) I don't pretend to be an authority on everything. I don't even pretend to be an authority on anything. I'm not like BRM - I don't and won't sift through research. I don't think this does mean that my only choice is to trust the experts. I'll try and show this in more detail later.

I never said warmer temps CAUSE life to prosper, I said it happens WHEN temps are warmer.

I never said cold weather CAUSED the Black Death, I said it returned when Europe cooled off.

Primates emerged when the planet was much warmer than it is now, the fact that this happened as the planet was cooling from even warmer temps doesn't negate this fact.

I'd respond to your comment about unsubstantiated claims, but I can't figure out what you're referring to.

So what is it that makes you think we'd be better off on a cold planet than a warm one?

4. No - I have no idea on any concrete values for (a) or (b), and, if we are talking about weather (which both you and Blowing Rock Master keep bringing up, even though the debate is about climate - if you don't understand the difference between weather and climate, grasping that distinction might be of use to you) within a degree or two I don't really suppose it matters.

If we were to discuss climate, what I think is apparent from the graph I posted is that over the last 85 million years not only has the temperature been declining, but that the climate has been remarkably stable - if you look at the previous time periods there have been sudden and vast temperature swings. From my understanding of climate change, the problems is not whether we can live in the world as it is now, but slightly hotter, but whether we can live in a world where a slightly hotter climate has caused the weather events to be that might be more extreme than any we have faced in the lifespan of the human species?

This is the issue I think you and Blowing Rock Master are failing to grasp - if the world heats up it won't just be a matter of changing the name of Eastbourne Pier to Promenade des Anglais and changing the Promenade des Anglais to Jumeirah Beach. While it may be possible for an expert to put values to (a) and (b), the issue with unpredictable weather events is that they are unpredictable. The reason we are having such a cold winter in the UK is due to the Gulf Stream moving South instead of North - a climate event that is having severe weather repercussions. If warming continues, we may need to be braced for worse.

I would agree that there are conflicting opinions on the nature of climate change, but are you really going to wait until all the evidence is in before you do something? I really don't see what the big fuss is about: if you do something now, and man-made climate change is reversible (a) it has cost you less than it would to fix it in the future, and (b) you've saved the planet; if climate change is real, but there isn't anything we can do about it we'll all be dead, so why not do something so you can fry to death with a clean conscience?; if you buy an electric car, take public transport, recycle and buy some insulation and double-glazing, but man-made climate change turns out to be a hoax, what have you lost? Nobody (at least nobody sensible) is suggesting that we need to reduce our carbon emissions to zero - so scaremongering talk of returning to a medieval lifestyle is simply rubbish.

I'm not going to argue that climate change is a scientific fact, but I am going to argue that gambling that it isn't is just plain stupid.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding once again to Deleuze, much more eloquently than I would have.

watchin wrote:

As an outside observer that is not a climatologist, give me a reason to reject the near consensus and accept the minority. So far, I might have reason to not blindfully follow the near consensus and maintain some skepticism, sure. But I have not been given a reason to reject the majority and side with blowing rock master. So far, you've only shown a few a few snippets of pseudo-science that I would rightfully assume the near consensus already evaluated and determined it was not dispositive.

It's not a matter of picking sides, this isn't a football game. It's a matter of making decisions based on tested theories and empirical evidence.

I'm not sure what pseudo science your're referring to, please point it out to me. While you're at it would you please point out the science Deleuze and Outsidethebox have presented.

1. No, I'm not.

2. Since that's not my argument it is irrelevant.

3. Making an argument doesn't require the arguer to propose a solution.

The scientific debate isn't over whether or not it's warming, it's over whether or not humans are causing it. If human's aren't then spending trillions, that could be better used elsewhere, won't do squat and may even be damaging to the world's population.

BTW, despite what you accuse me of I haven't said anything about weather in this thread, but I'll bring it up now. The wet snowy winter is being caused by an El Nino event in the Pacific. The 300 year old warming trend has nothing to do with it. If it was climate driven it would be like this every year, not one out of ten.

Onlyme,

(1) I haven't mentioned the weather. The weather is not relevant to my argument. I mentioned purely parathentically that the cold winter in Britain wasn't causing my running to prosper. This was obviously not something that I was using to support an argument and I would have thought that was clear.

(2) What makes you think I don't understand the difference between climate and weather? I do understand the difference between them.

(3) So your concern is with unpredictable weather events? Can you give me an example of any of these that have occurred as a result of man's activities that have caused harm? (I don't think that the cold British winter is anything other than the merest most uninteresting harm.) What makes you think that man's activities will give rise to unpredictable weather activities that cause harm?

(4) Taking action about climate change makes sense under certain parameters, but not under others. I'm sure we agree on this and I agree that gambling isn't plain stupid. It is a gamble however and should be considered as such and you'll therefore probably accept that other rational people would choose to gamble in a different fashion. I also think it makes sense to look at the parameters before we make the gamble. Parameters that we need to look at are (i) the probability of harm occurring if we do nothing, (ii) the magnitude of such harm, (iii) the cost of taking action (iv) and the chances of such action succeeding. (The costs you mentioned would be nothing for me as I already don't have a car and do recycle the few things I buy and have an insulated abode.) The costs mentioned by others are much more significant, particularly on a global scale and particularly when you consider the opportunity cost. My mention of a medieval lifestyle was an example of a possible action as I have mentioned. It's not scaremongering: it's rhetoric. I could be convinced that taking the gamble makes sense - I'm not currently at that stage.

only me wrote:

1. No, I'm not.

2. Since that's not my argument it is irrelevant.

3. Making an argument doesn't require the arguer to propose a solution.

In that case I have no idea what your argument is.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The scientific debate isn't over whether or not it's warming, it's over whether or not humans are causing it. If human's aren't then spending trillions, that could be better used elsewhere, won't do squat and may even be damaging to the world's population.

BTW, despite what you accuse me of I haven't said anything about weather in this thread, but I'll bring it up now. The wet snowy winter is being caused by an El Nino event in the Pacific. The 300 year old warming trend has nothing to do with it. If it was climate driven it would be like this every year, not one out of ten.

Even if climate change is not caused by humans, to the extent that its consequences are harmful to humans, we should consider taking action. The actions to be taken in this hypothesis are different from the actions to be taken if global warming is caused by humans.

If by that you mean actions to adapt, I wholeheartedly agree. But the two "solutions" I've seen bandied about are trading carbon credits, and carbon taxes. Neither one of these address adaptation as far as I'm aware. They do make energy more expensive, thus making everything more expensive. This can be devastating if you're poor.

Blowing Rock Master:You still have not responded to deleuze's quote below:

deleuze wrote:

Your view is that we should all become experts in climate science in order to form our opinion on global warming. Even if this were possible [It's not.] your argument requires the assumption that becoming an expert in climate science would lead you to have a different opinion than the experts in climate science. This assumption is literally absurd.

Any help that you can offer on this point would be much appreciated.

Some Coked Up Brit already did. I've never said everyone needs to be an expert, but those making policy to address warming better know what they're talking about.

watchin wrote:

rawring wrote:

Don't give me all this consensus bullsh** and expect me just to hang up my spikes and quit. If you don't know how to discuss real science, stay out of it.

Ok. Again, as an outside observer that is not a scientist, why should I believe you and not the majority? What makes the science of the minority so much better than the science of the majority? I'm assuming you're not a climatologist. What made you believe the minority?

Ok, honestly, I'll tell you what made me change my mind. I heard all of this on the news, and right away I could tell something was up with the way they were pushing this hysteria thing. Once I actually started studying it, it took maybe a year to figure out that the mounting evidence against GW was much more rational and thought out than the evidence for it. It wasn't hard to tell that all most GW proponents had going for them were faulty computer models and guesses about the future. The way science works, things are supposed to be observable, testable, and in this case there was just not enough evidence to be convincing. Then they started pushing the consensus, and seeing how Al Gore and others vehemently denied any argument or refused to debate just made me very suspicious. To this day, most of the evidence and trends don't indicate catastrophe because the science that the GW proponent side represents is now about as clear as a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, the leaked e-mails from climategate presented compelling reasons to believe the whole consensus thing was a sham. Furthermore, I've never been able to find a valid poll or actual measure of scientists' belief in GW. It's easy to claim consensus, but harder to present a reason for that consensus. That's why I don't pay attention to the consensus anymore. It seems a lot of scientists even are politically motivated, and bullying within the community is also a concern, along with getting grant money for research. There is a lot of room for corruption, let alone the fact that scientists are only human in the first place and many of them can be misled according to preconceived notions. So far, I just don't see any reason to believe. That's why I don't. My dad was also just recently convinced as well because he was able to look beyond what he was being told through TV and books he read.

That's my reason.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

watchin wrote:

As an outside observer that is not a climatologist, give me a reason to reject the near consensus and accept the minority. So far, I might have reason to not blindfully follow the near consensus and maintain some skepticism, sure. But I have not been given a reason to reject the majority and side with blowing rock master. So far, you've only shown a few a few snippets of pseudo-science that I would rightfully assume the near consensus already evaluated and determined it was not dispositive.

It's not a matter of picking sides, this isn't a football game. It's a matter of making decisions based on tested theories and empirical evidence.

I'm not sure what pseudo science your're referring to, please point it out to me. While you're at it would you please point out the science Deleuze and Outsidethebox have presented.

Yes, thank you. This is a good point. It's hard to argue with someone when they refuse to even look at the causes and effects and instead want to tell us that we should trust the majority under any circumstances. If you're going to do that, then of course a scientific view won't help persuade you because you'll just say "the majority disagrees" no matter what evidence we have against this. Furthermore, this consensus hasn't been objectively demonstrated. There is not one scientific poll about this so the fact that the "consensus" is being pushed despite the lack of measuring is very questionable.