Discussionator -

Opinion

Science articles in the media should be required to provide links to the papers or press releases that they are based on, to provide references that can be checked.
– Lee J Haywood, 2009-09-26 at 10:58:48 (35 comments)

	On 2009-09-26 at 15:48:54, DigitalBoss wrote... Here is a good one for you: See if you can find proof that the so called "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", for you REAL progressives, is anthropogenic. Please cite your sources.
	On 2009-09-26 at 15:50:15, DigitalBoss wrote... I don't want a consensus. Consensus just means that you don't have proof.
	On 2009-09-26 at 15:53:39, Lee J Haywood wrote... That was going to be one of my other topics - people who confuse 'proof' and evidence. Other than in mathematics, there's no such thing as proof in science - as far as the real world is concerned. When there is a mountain of evidence, however, it constitutes a reasonable proof. Anyone who demands a proof, as though such a thing can be given in a few sentences, fundamentally misunderstands how science works.
	On 2009-09-26 at 16:27:17, Lee J Haywood wrote... There are a great number of scientific papers on the subject of climate change. As with any topic, a meta-analysis of studies is more informative than quoting potentially-conflicting papers. The IPCC is the best source of information for 2 reasons. Firstly, it has withstood criticism and its reports are accepted by governments and climate scientists. Secondly, it was set up by conservatives to show that climate change was not happening, yet having insisted on only the most accurate evidence it has concluded the opposite.
	On 2009-09-26 at 16:29:59, Lee J Haywood wrote... You can read the 4th report here, which is widely known to understate the severity of climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf Some of the key passages are as follows. • The atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄ in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. • The global atmospheric concentration of CO₂ increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280ppm to 379ppm in 2005. • There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. • The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming.
	On 2009-09-26 at 19:29:30, DigitalBoss wrote... From 1832 to today (2009), (177 years), an increase from 0.02% to 0.03%.
	On 2009-09-26 at 19:31:23, DigitalBoss wrote... But when there was a REAL greenhouse effect on this planet was millions of years ago, and carbon dioxide levels were more like 5% to 10%, not in the hundredths of one percent.
	On 2009-09-26 at 19:34:33, DigitalBoss wrote... Atmosphere=Nitrogen-78.09%; Oxygen-20.95%; Argon-0.93%;Carbon dioxide-0.03%;
	On 2009-09-26 at 22:46:36, BorgClown wrote... Climate is complex, unless we develop a 100% accurate model of it, there's no telling if a few more hundredths of greenhouse gases would turn it upside down. A water glass can be spilled with just one more drop. Earth was a giant greenhouse million of years ago, but that was probably the upper limit, not the tipping point.
	On 2009-09-27 at 09:51:37, Lee J Haywood wrote... An increase from 280ppm to 379ppm is an increase of over 1%, unprecedented for the last 10,000 years, which is significant. In our lifetimes the world population has essentially doubled and our impact in general (not just emissions) has been to reshape the very surface of the planet. The fact that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere shows how incredibly powerful it is at trapping heat - without out it, the Earth would be lifeless. The question becomes whether the planet can remove it as fast we add, and the answer is no - quite the opposite, as tipping-points cause greater natural emissions and loss of reflective ice, leading to catastrophic climate change. It's absolutely true that CO₂ levels have been high millions of years ago. But neither humans nor many of the other species here today were around then. Of course your argument that humans might not be entirely to blame works against you - if we're simply making things worse, then the last thing we should be doing is accelerating dangerous warming.
	On 2009-09-28 at 12:47:01, DigitalBoss wrote... There is evidence that humans have raised the level of carbon dioxide slightly in the atmosphere, and there is some evidence of warming, which is now cooling. You cannot, however, connect the two. You cannot prove that the former caused the latter, and if you cannot prove it, I do not want you to increase the size of government, my taxes, or my energy costs. Now if you can do something reasonable to switch to more environment friendly energy sources without costing me money, then do it, yes.
	On 2009-09-28 at 14:58:44, DigitalBoss wrote... The whole of the climate change movement is geared to increasing the size of government, raising taxes, redistributing wealth from rich countries to poor counties, and quenching capitalism. It is all a communist plot. I know that sounds of McCarthyism, but I think McCarthy had it right.
	On 2009-09-28 at 16:05:19, DigitalBoss wrote... http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
	On 2009-09-28 at 16:17:39, Baslisks wrote... @DigitalBoss: McCarthy.... lied. A fuck ton. The first time I read that from you. I lost any semblance of respect and trust in your word. Also your objection seems more political than scientific. Which goes against this poll.
	On 2009-09-28 at 18:14:35, DigitalBoss wrote... Don't give a fuck, dude.
	On 2009-09-28 at 18:37:05, DigitalBoss wrote... As far as McCarthy goes, read about "VENONA".
	On 2009-09-28 at 18:38:19, Baslisks wrote... oh fuck, I'm responsible... http://www.secularism.org.uk/113418.html
	On 2009-09-28 at 18:48:00, Baslisks wrote... @DigitalBoss: McCarthy started a panic that damaged your beloved constitution. Its happening again with the patriot act." Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Works both ways.
	On 2009-09-28 at 19:15:11, DigitalBoss wrote... There are many misconceptions of McCarthy. I suggest that you read up a little.
	On 2009-09-28 at 20:01:54, BorgClown wrote... Wouldn't it be better to point at a specific source(s)? Since there are many misconceptions of McCarthy, reading more would probably just increase the misconceptions acquired.
	On 2009-09-28 at 20:28:19, Baslisks wrote... @BorgClown: no thats not his style. because that would be him giving up a portion of his life for you.
	On 2009-09-29 at 11:53:57, DigitalBoss wrote... That's ok, it is pretty much everywhere, even wikipedia.
	On 2009-10-01 at 16:42:42, Lee J Haywood wrote... "You cannot prove that the former caused the latter". It's not a question of 'proof'. You may as well ask us to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, and then when we've explained how gravity works and how historical evidence reliably backs up our ideas about sunrises being without exception you can turn around and say, "well, yes, but you cannot PROVE it!" The reality is that we can reliably judge how much absorption/emission of energy CO₂/CH₄ causes. We can predict how much energy from the sun will reach the Earth's surface and compare it with predictions. We can state the degree of uncertainty in our models, yet still make valid deductions about the effects of extra greenhouse gases. Even if the dramatic and destructive changes already under way are largely natural, we know full well that we are only making them worse and we know by how much.
	On 2009-10-01 at 16:43:09, Lee J Haywood wrote... "There is some evidence of warming, which is now cooling". Yes, that's another problem - lay people are easily swayed by simple statements regardless of the underlying science. If you have a cold winter in your local area, it's difficult to accept that global temperatures are on an upward trend. The change is on an entirely different scale though - a 4 degree change in global temperatures is an unmitigated disaster, but as a local change you'd barely notice it. There is a natural trend towards cooling over the short-term, as a result of variability in circulation patterns and currents. It's all too easy for people to see this as a contradiction, even though it's unrelated to the underlying warming trend. Climate is complex, so the only people who can describe it in snappy sound bites are the ones spouting nonsense. Unfortunately it is human nature to seize upon simple answers to difficult questions.
	On 2009-10-01 at 16:43:35, Lee J Haywood wrote... "The whole of the climate change movement is geared to increasing the size of government, raising taxes..." That's an amazing arrogance, suggesting that what is happening in US politics covers motivation in the entire world. In Europe climate change has near-complete consensus by politicians, yet globally there is nowhere near enough action being taken. The UK are making significant cuts in emissions yet the fact that we're still making significant emissions and will continue to do so makes the cuts almost meaningless. The Boxer-Kerry bill now going into the upper house in the US is laughable. It recommends a 20% cut from 2005 levels, yet that's only a 4% cut from 1990 levels - essentially business-as-usual. Personally I think that the idea of making unwanted cuts like this is fundamentally flawed. We should be rapidly developing and deploying alternative sources of energy, at cost, and making them cheap enough that no-one will want to use fossil fuels (although taxes on them help to replace them).
	On 2009-10-01 at 16:44:05, Lee J Haywood wrote... "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition". I estimate that that's maybe around 1% of the total number of scientists in the US, as a very rough guess. Of course the petition fails to list their areas of expertise. I'm confident that few, if any, are climate scientists. I have a science degree, yet my personal opinion on climate change is just as worthless as the next idiot's - signing a petition doesn't make a jot of difference. If climate change is true or not, reality isn't affected by popular opinion. Personally, I think that lay people think of climate change as just one thing. But it's effects are far-reaching, from food supply to species migration/extinction, from sea-level rise to earthquakes/eruptions, from glacier melting to loss of water supplies, from forest fires to heatwaves, from spread of disease to collapse of ecosystems. If you're exposed to the continual evidence of these effects, already taking place, then the least destructive approach looks damned sensible.
	On 2009-10-01 at 17:46:50, DigitalBoss wrote... Yeah, nobody mentions the idea that higher carbon dioxide levels could actually be better. Plants intake carbon dioxide, the harvest of some food crops could be higher. I know I have a hard time keeping my backyard tame. There is certainly no reason to increase the size of government, raise taxes, and energy costs over something that cannot be proven.
	On 2009-10-01 at 18:03:12, DigitalBoss wrote... I have seen no indication of rising sea levels. A scientific theory, if correct, allows you to make predictions, and they should come true. Then why has the last 10 years shown cooling average global temperatures? If your greenhouse theory is so correct, how is that? The ONLY reason our the left side of our (US) government is getting involved is because they see it as an excellent method of increasing their power. End of story.
	On 2009-10-01 at 18:04:06, DigitalBoss wrote... It only takes one untrue prediction to kill a scientific theory.
	On 2009-10-01 at 20:37:46, BorgClown wrote... It only takes one untrue prediction to killrefine a scientific theory. You as a scholar you should know contradictory facts make theories evolve, not disappear.
	On 2009-10-02 at 11:54:12, Lee J Haywood wrote... Any benefits of climate change are minor, and vastly outweighed by the negatives. Some plants grow faster but as a result are considerably less nutritious - dangerously so, since you have to digest more and get little benefit from them. It's a myth that faster-growing plants are a hidden benefit of climate change. Many plants will be unable to grow anywhere near as well, not because of the increased carbon dioxide but because of changes in temperature and precipitation in their present locations.