Why don't Letsrunners believe in global warming?

middle professor wrote:

Google has made us all experts. This entire thread is yet another beautiful example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Google, or working with highly respected scientists to analyze NASA-collected data on climate patterns (admittedly while an undergrad)? I certainly ain't relyin' on the former.

Rene - yes it's fairly easy to infer who has been trained in science and at what level on these threads. I should have qualified my statement with "almost [the entire thread..."

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

run with the wom wrote:

So even if you don't want to believe in global warming, why wouldn't you want to decrease car and industrial pollution?

Let get a couple of things straight.

1. I fully believe the climate is warming. It has been for roughly 300 years. This is the latest leg in the warming/cooling cycle that has been going on since the last ice age.

2. When have I ever said I want more pollution? The schemes espoused by the UN and Enviro-Nazis all focus on taxing or reducing CO2. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Ask any plant.

3. There is NO long term correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature variations. Forcing people to reduce CO2 output (thereby reducing the global standard of living) will not have any discernible effect on global temperatures.

No, the schemes espoused by Enviro-Nazis aim to employ fuel sources not tied to petro-dictators all over the world who harbor the people who kill us and fire tear gas at their citizens when they want democracy. How is finding ways to turn solar and wind energy into battery power for cars you plug into your home solely aimed at reducing CO2? How is finding ways to use natural gas reserves to create hydrogen power for cars aimed solely at CO2 reduction? How is using solar power panels and windmills instead of coal aimed solely at CO2 reduction? Or the potentially misguided attempts to do corn-based ethanol, that burns pretty similarly to oil-based petrol? Renewable trumps non-renewable, if we can make them equally efficient.

Argue all you want, but what exactly can we do about it?

If everyone out there who REALLY believes humans are causing this climate change would put their actions where their mouths are, they would stop driving automobiles, stop using petroleum products, electricity, and refuse to accept sustenance from fossil fuel generated products.

If they are that afraid of the effects of AGW, they should commit to their version of the fix.

well of course wrote:

Argue all you want, but what exactly can we do about it?

If everyone out there who REALLY believes humans are causing this climate change would put their actions where their mouths are, they would stop driving automobiles, stop using petroleum products, electricity, and refuse to accept sustenance from fossil fuel generated products.

If they are that afraid of the effects of AGW, they should commit to their version of the fix.

That's right. And everyone out there who "professes" to be concerned about our national debt should donate their entire lifetime savings to the Feds in order to commit to their version of the fix. If they're not willing to do that then it's really hard to take their "concern" seriously.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Great, point me to 1 piece of empirical evidence that shows the planet wouldn't have warmed over the last 100 years if it hadn't been for people. I've been asking this question for two years on this board and nobody has been able to show me any.

That is because it is fundamentally impossible to satisfy the request you are making.

One cannot gather empirical evidence of a non-event. The best that can be done is to develop a model of the known circumstances, then run the model again, having deleted the forcing that is due to one or another of the several factors that are involved in the system. This is precisely what has been done in the case of climate modeling, and is part of the argument in support of the anthropogenic contribution to the overall warming of the planet.

However, you had also previously stated* that you refuse to accept as valid any support that derives from computer models of the atmosphere. Very clever: you might as well have said that you will only believe addition to be vlaid if one can show you that two plus two equals five.

*:at least I think that was you; apologies if I have confused you with another poster.

used to be cool wrote:

Firstly, you assume that I'm American. You would be incorrect as I'm Canadian and live in a country that would likely benefit (at least in the short term) from global warming.

Secondly, where did I ever say that Americans should make all the sacrifice? I certainly do believe that, as a source of 25% of the World's emissions and a global superpower with great influence, that the U.S. has to be a leader in any kind of strategy for it to work. To borrow an old cliche: "With great power comes great responsibility..." The British left a great legacy in the wake of their time as a superpower. Will the U.S. be seen in the same light, I wonder?

That the British legacy is "great" as in "significant" cannot be disputed. But if you are claiming that it is "great" in the positive sense, I would point to places such as Iraq, Palestine, India+Pakistan(+Bangladesh), Egypt, Sudan, and more. The British legacy is significant, but it is mixed. In many ways, the world is a far better place thanks to the British Empire, in many others, it is far worse. The United States is well on its way to an equally mixed legacy.

That said, I don't dispute your point that the US must take a leadership role; I just thought I'd check how ruddy your lenses were.

Ahem, Iraq was created by the League of Nations (and was only ever a British mandate after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, not part of the Empire proper), Palestine was divided by the United Nations, not Britain, and the Indian Partition was something requested by the citizens of India (look up "3rd June Plan"), not forced on them by the British.

Not trying to say that everything was great, but I think you need to find other examples, because if you look at the ones you've given in greater detail, then you can't blame the Empire for how things turned out.

Yes, I'm sure the league really had to twist the British arms to get them to take over those oilfields. We can only thank their diplomats for selflessly undertaking that noble task.

Typical Liberal! Yeah, there's a national debt, so the only way to get rid of it is to get the people who care to PAY MORE!Maybe you can SPEND F'N LESS YOU MORONS!!!! You guys always want to fix the problem from the wrong side.As for the prvious poster's remarks on Global Warming Alarmists putting their money where their mouth is-- I can't believe you actually refuted it. If they're not willing to do it, why would anyone that has doubts be willing to?

well of course not wrote:

well of course wrote:

Argue all you want, but what exactly can we do about it?

If everyone out there who REALLY believes humans are causing this climate change would put their actions where their mouths are, they would stop driving automobiles, stop using petroleum products, electricity, and refuse to accept sustenance from fossil fuel generated products.

If they are that afraid of the effects of AGW, they should commit to their version of the fix.

That's right. And everyone out there who "professes" to be concerned about our national debt should donate their entire lifetime savings to the Feds in order to commit to their version of the fix. If they're not willing to do that then it's really hard to take their "concern" seriously.

used to be cool wrote:

Much much warmer wrote:

You think that Canada would benefit?!? Where exactly do you think 300 million Americans are going to migrate to when it gets too warm down here.

So, unless you like singing The Star Spangled Banner, I'd say you've got more to lose than just about anyone.

Touche!

But take a look at where most Americans live right now. In the South and on the coast, where Winters are temperate. I think that, with or without global warming, Canada's still going to be too cold for most, plus there's the perception that Canada's a socialist country, which will scare away the Tea-partiers. I do worry about our freshwater though and what will happen when the U.S. runs out in many regions.

Your link is a summary discourse on greenhouse gases (which completely ignores water vapor, by far the most infuential), nobody disputes the information there. But it didn't contain ANY empirical evidence of anything, much less any evidence that the current warming is human caused and not a natural event.

Expert Opinion wrote:

"Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" either the technical summary of or full text of chapter 2, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" is what you're looking for.

Great, so what part of that is the empirical evidence that shows humans cause the current warming, not a natural process?

Rene the Cart wrote:

No, the schemes espoused by Enviro-Nazis aim to employ fuel sources not tied to petro-dictators all over the world who harbor the people who kill us and fire tear gas at their citizens when they want democracy. How is finding ways to turn solar and wind energy into battery power for cars you plug into your home solely aimed at reducing CO2? How is finding ways to use natural gas reserves to create hydrogen power for cars aimed solely at CO2 reduction? How is using solar power panels and windmills instead of coal aimed solely at CO2 reduction? Or the potentially misguided attempts to do corn-based ethanol, that burns pretty similarly to oil-based petrol? Renewable trumps non-renewable, if we can make them equally efficient.

I'm all for renewables. Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes have nothing to do with renewables.

Also, the main opponents of renewables ARE the environmental groups. I live in an area that is ideal for windmills, but there is a grand total of 1. Is that because the evil oil companies don't want them? No, its environmentalists who claim they'll ruin the view. Left wing groups in Massachusetts (including the Kennedy family) have been trying to stop a wind farm in Nantucket Sound for years. Solar farms destroy habitats for endangered desert rodents. Hydro plants prevent Salmon from reaching their spawning grounds.

BTW, creating H2 from natural gas releases CO2 and CO (a potent poison).

"One cannot gather empirical evidence of a non-event."

Invert the statement and it can be tested.

Computer models are virtual reality worlds. They are completely dependent on the inputs provided, the assumptions made in the design, the rules which run their interactions, and any fudge factors introduced. Get any of that wrong and the results are misleading at best, and garbage at worst. The IPCC's model runs from the 90's have all overstated the observed temperature rise (or lack thereof) since then. Does that not make you suspect they have a problem.

All other branches of science test their hypotheses through experimentation and evidence gathering. Are you telling me it is impossible to do this with AGW?

Expert Opinion wrote:

"Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" either the technical summary of or full text of chapter 2, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" is what you're looking for.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Great, so what part of that is the empirical evidence that shows humans cause the current warming, not a natural process?

The whole section is a discussion of the empirical evidence for greenhouse gases and estimates of the degree to which human activity contributes. The trivial answer to your question is the historically high levels of greenhouse gases, but a trivial answer begs a trivial dismissal on your part. If you mean to refute the theory, you're welcome to come up with some substantial analysis of the empirical evidence that supports a different conclusion, but don't pretend that there is no evidence in support of anthrogenic climate change.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The IPCC's model runs from the 90's have all overstated the observed temperature rise (or lack thereof) since then.

It looks like you're testing a hypothesis right there. Earlier it seemed like you were saying ALL computer models are invalid evidence. If you're just saying that some of the models from the past are flawed, sure, you're correct. That doesn't mean that, even though the science and models have improved, we can't put ANY stock in those models.

well of course not wrote:

well of course wrote:

Argue all you want, but what exactly can we do about it?

If everyone out there who REALLY believes humans are causing this climate change would put their actions where their mouths are, they would stop driving automobiles, stop using petroleum products, electricity, and refuse to accept sustenance from fossil fuel generated products.

If they are that afraid of the effects of AGW, they should commit to their version of the fix.

That's right. And everyone out there who "professes" to be concerned about our national debt should donate their entire lifetime savings to the Feds in order to commit to their version of the fix. If they're not willing to do that then it's really hard to take their "concern" seriously.

You mean like Algore who flies around the country on a personal jet, which burns a ton of carbon based fuel?

you are unbelievable wrote:

Typical Liberal! Yeah, there's a national debt, so the only way to get rid of it is to get the people who care to PAY MORE!

Maybe you can SPEND F'N LESS YOU MORONS!!!! You guys always want to fix the problem from the wrong side.

As for the prvious poster's remarks on Global Warming Alarmists putting their money where their mouth is-- I can't believe you actually refuted it. If they're not willing to do it, why would anyone that has doubts be willing to?

well of course not wrote:

That's right. And everyone out there who "professes" to be concerned about our national debt should donate their entire lifetime savings to the Feds in order to commit to their version of the fix. If they're not willing to do that then it's really hard to take their "concern" seriously.

OK. Honest question - Are you really so stupid that you did not get it? That you thought that I was actually proposing this course of action as opposed to pointing out by analogy that "Well of course" was wildly illogical?

Seriously. Are you that stupid?

Please say you were just kidding. Just trolling. And restore my tenuous belief that the average LetsRun poster is noticeably more intelligent than the average chimpanzee.

Please tell me you are not that stupid.

Please.