No Need to Panic About Global Warming?

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

why don't you respond to the post? It's debt that's causing "warming".

P.S. Oh, and that's because the earth's been cooling, not warming for the past 10+ years.

you say that like it is a fact, when in reality it is an incredibly misguided opinion.

Say what like a fact? The fact that debt/GDP is more highly correlated with global warming than CO2? Or that the earth's been cooling?

Regardless,...

The reality is - my whole complaint (from origin until now) could be summarized in what you've written if switched. So, I'd switch a few words (making it more polite and more on-point to my message):

Leftist environmentalists approach the issue of global warming and the aspects associated with it like they are facts, when the reality is underlying the entire notion is an opinion, or broader theories.

My problem is the wholehearted notion that science has proven their theory correct, and the story is over. Polaris is the prototypical example of a person who can't imagine a scenario where his views are incorrect on this issue. To him, and many others here - perhaps including yourself, it's impossible that their "opinion" is wrong on this issue.

That's "misguided". Science is never over. What those environmentalist (or supporters of the thought that global warming is real and man made) have is a theory. Sure, there's some data to back up their claims, but there's data to so that's not true too. The irony is that when anything is presented to the debate that runs contrary to their opinion, they dismiss it immediately as being oil-friendly, ect. But, looking at it from a bird's eye view, someone could easily say the same about the research on the other side... being big governement friendly. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who the science is coming from, if it's sound science. And with this issue, there's too many reasons to argue it's just not sound science.

As for me - I'm not saying I know everything. I don't know all the answers here, nor do I claim to (unlike you and others). I'm saying none of us really know. You, we, have all a theory, an opinion. You use some data to try to align the public with their theory. Others have opposing data and try to align the public with that theory.

This issue is not something that can currently be "proven" 100% because it's too complicated. There are too many unknowns. We don't know enough about what other things could impact climate/temperature on the earth. And due to that, saying CO2 is the cause of this and in particular is man-made, is difficult to rally 100% around.

That's been my point all along. I find it hysterical that I get pinned as the closed-minded individual, when I say I don't know for certain the answer here and am presenting information from an opposition viewpoint because too often we hear one side from individuals who claim they do know for certain.

he still stands

there may be a correlation between debt and temperature...

but to say that debt is causing the temperature to change, rather than things like pollutants and CO2, is just a totally worthless and horrible argument. "yes, those calculations that only exist within a computer somewhere and aren't even tangible - that's why it is 5 degrees warmer this year" :roll:

regardless, I was referring to your statement about "global cooling" as being just totally off base, not the debt thing, but that is too.

not that I *love* debt or something... I'm a fiscal conservative.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

why don't you respond to the post? It's debt that's causing "warming".

P.S. Oh, and that's because the earth's been cooling, not warming for the past 10+ years.

why should he respond when you don't respond? ... in your own thread?

i would love to hear what you think about the guy who took the metoffice information and completely distorted it? ... but alas - it's crickets on those points from you because you don't know what the heck anyone is talking about ... your inability to discuss the points in the articles you posted while still simultaneously perpetuating propaganda is a clear indication of your indoctrination ... it shouldn't be a surprise considering your viewpoints on other topics ... you want to call me close minded but yet you don't even understand the things you are posting and are strictly posting it because it supports your biased and unfortunately ignorant view point ...

First, I've responded to you every time I had an opportunity and felt it was appropriate. I know your head practically explodes when you realize someone would stand against your religion. But, guess what,... people do.

Second, I did respond to him. So, I asked for a response from him. I'll do so with you too: What are your thoughts on the graph that shows that debt is a bigger indicator of global warming than CO2?

Third, you don't make friends by insulting them or their intelligence constantly, simply because they don't see they world the way you do. That's not how grown ups do it. I have done research and had it published. And, honestly, if someone with your innate bias was doing the research and I was an academic referee, I'd toss it immediately. I feel a lot of the researchers do have your type of bias. That's basically been one of my points all along, the whole community of climate research needs to keep global warming an issue because their careers depend on it. Therefore, the academic material that is released, typically sides with that side of the theories. This is just as much as an issue as those on the other side and where they receive their funding. Both sides may be bias.

Third, what exactly did this individual you mention distort, polaris? Please use your own words.... don't post other people's "bias" blogs with your answer.

he still stands

inlet... if your household debt is increasing, why is that?

it is because you are consuming more than you should be.

now take that to a worldwide scale. if we're consuming more on a worldwide basis than we should be, does that mean that we're also producing a lot of waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, and the like?

*correlation*

polaris_x

ok ... final statement to inlet13 ... after this i will continue to post :( after his propaganda links:

your position on science and theory is fine - the primary problem with you in this thread is that you have not posted anything credible to support your dissension ... not one credible piece ...

on top of that - when others (mainly myself) did the work that you should have done - you completely ignore it ... it is why i've called you disingenuous and a troll ... you post blatantly false statements and then lack the integrity to back them up ... then when all else fails you go back to the same point about science ...

so again, i will ask you ... if that is how you feel about science - would you let smokers smoke in front of your baby? do you want toxic waste buried in your back yard? do you believe in modern medicine? ... that all falls into science ...

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Third, what exactly did this individual you mention distort, polaris? Please use your own words.... don't post other people's "bias" blogs with your answer.

this is a joke? ... ... you didn't even look at the link i posted!?? ... really!?? ...

so ... you post a link from some guy who basically posted an utter lie and one that is easily proven at that ... and then i post a statement from the organization he misused to paint his article and you don't even read it ... again - disingenuous ... if you really want to foster discussion and debate on global warming ...

1. know what global warming is
2. read both sides of the argument

ok ... this is really my last post to you ...

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

there may be a correlation between debt and temperature...

but to say that debt is causing the temperature to change, rather than things like pollutants and CO2, is just a totally worthless and horrible argument. "yes, those calculations that only exist within a computer somewhere and aren't even tangible - that's why it is 5 degrees warmer this year" :roll:

regardless, I was referring to your statement about "global cooling" as being just totally off base, not the debt thing, but that is too.

not that I *love* debt or something... I'm a fiscal conservative.

I am well aware with the potential issues in saying debt is "causing" temperature changes. Yet, the "science" of statistics says it is, or could say so (as shown in that graphic). In fact, it says it's a much better indicator than CO2 (as you can see with the coefficient). So, if we can say debt is NOT causing temperature fluctuations, why? Further, why can't we do the same with CO2? Or at the very least, why can't we "DOUBT" CO2's contribution without being crucified?

Underlying point - these are theories and the empirics can be flawed and rarely "prove" anything. Although everyone is jumping down my throat, my claim is nothing is proven here, there's just data supporting an argument. And the data in that chart, implies debt is a better indicator than CO2. That's actual data.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

inlet... if your household debt is increasing, why is that?

it is because you are consuming more than you should be.

now take that to a worldwide scale. if we're consuming more on a worldwide basis than we should be, does that mean that we're also producing a lot of waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, and the like?

*correlation*

The chart uses debt/GDP... which should account for that (since GDP is measured in expenditures). That chart shows an issue of government debt, not spending. I'd be curious as to hear how you'd explain...

...government spending above it's means results in more waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, etc. And remember, this is so much so, that it's a better fit with temperature changes than CO2.

he still stands

inlet13 wrote:

So, if we can say debt is NOT causing temperature fluctuations, why? Further, why can't we do the same with CO2? Or at the very least, why can't we "DOUBT" CO2's contribution without being crucified?

because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.

CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.

inlet13 wrote:

Underlying point - these are theories and the empirics can be flawed and rarely "prove" anything. Although everyone is jumping down my throat, my claim is nothing is proven here, there's just data supporting an argument. And the data in that chart, implies debt is a better indicator than CO2. That's actual data.

there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

ok ... final statement to inlet13 ... after this i will continue to post :( after his propaganda links:

your position on science and theory is fine - the primary problem with you in this thread is that you have not posted anything credible to support your dissension ... not one credible piece ...

No offense, but what I've been trying to say back to you is that (according to the other side) you never post a credible piece. Not one credible piece, according to them. It works both ways. You pretend like you're the judge of credibility. You're not.

polaris_x wrote:

on top of that - when others (mainly myself) did the work that you should have done - you completely ignore it ... it is why i've called you disingenuous and a troll ... you post blatantly false statements and then lack the integrity to back them up ... then when all else fails you go back to the same point about science ...

I ignore it because I know you immediately believe that anything that runs counter to your religion is false. You'll concoct various ways of saying "see this is why it's wrong", typically in a hot-headed aggravated manner. For example, this entire article is false because of roughly 20 scientists, several were worked a field tied to petroleum or whatnot. My point back is both sides could be attacked in this way. I've been saying that all along. When you do attack the message of posts, you use messengers on your side of the issue to do it. It's unbelievably hysterical because you start by saying "this guy's has an agenda"... then if you do dig at substance of what they said... you use "your guy's" points (who the other side would say has an agenda) to prove your point. My takeaway is both sides probably have agendas... and due to that, it's refreshing to look and promote what we rarely hear or read.

polaris_x wrote:

so again, i will ask you ... if that is how you feel about science - would you let smokers smoke in front of your baby? do you want toxic waste buried in your back yard? do you believe in modern medicine? ... that all falls into science ...

To directly answer your question... Would I let smokers smoke in front of my baby? I'd probably walk away. I don't like smoke, and do believe it's most likely bad for me and the baby. Do I want toxic waste buried in my back yard? No, I don't for a variety of reasons. Do I believe in modern medicine? Yes, I do believe in most aspects associated with modern medicine.

Answering all of these doesn't really get at my points though... like toxic waste in my backyard example... I don't know if it would effect me or not. But, I wouldn't take the chance. I know the next response would be "well, you're willing to take a chance with global warming"? Global warming or climate change is not the same to me. I'm saying I don't know about man's contribution to climate changes. I see climate changes constantly. I figure the sun has to have something to do with it. I also get the fact that this is a leftist way to increase regulation with public support, increase their tentacles and slow economic growth. So, on net, it's different than every single issue you put forth. In other words, there's a lot to be lost if we think global warming exists and We're WRONG.

Personally, I believe there are incentives for climatologists to be bias. I don't believe there's as much of an incentive for health statisticians to be bias. I think it depends on your field and where you receive your funding. For example, I do think pharma stasticians downplay side effects and whatnot.

Medical professional statisticians are up there as some of the best in the business. Climate statisticians probably fall down the bottom of the list, if they are even statisticians at all. As someone who engages in statistics regularly, I know the amount of scrutiny that goes on in certain fields vs. others. It's excessive in medicine. And in medicine, I just don't see the cause of the bias as much. In my humble opinion, if medical statisticians were to look at these issues statistically, they would say this issue the answer to CO2's role is largely unknown, and most likely not significant. That's my take.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.

No, debt is a number. In fact, it's a measurable and accurate number.

he still stands wrote:

CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.

I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.

he still stands wrote:

there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;

You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.

In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

LOL!

Holy crap- I never realized pirates are in such a state of decline!

WTF? What's happening?

polaris_x

polaris_x wrote:

The chances of anyone, no matter how adept or empathetic a communicator, penetrating that thicket of resentment, martyrdom, and fantasy and extracting climate sanity just strike me as … slim. This is a demographic death rattle. It just has to play out.

slim is right ...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.

No, debt is a number. In fact, it's a measurable and accurate number.

he still stands wrote:

CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.

I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.

he still stands wrote:

there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;

You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.

In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.

When you state, "... the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists" you have officially gone off the deep end.

I'll agree with you that we cannot satisfy the certainty of a global warming epidemic with 100% assuredness; but you'll have to agree with me that- especially with the stakes so extremely high- there is more than enough evidence to proceed with extreme caution. Not heeding the warnings is stupid. Flat out stupid.

The people arguing with you aren't mindless sheep. In contrary, the people who would suggest global warming is not occurring are in denial. Ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to climate change and continuing with our glutenous ways is akin to playing Russian Roulette. Odds are you aren't going to get a bullet in the head, but why would you still play?

Come on, man... you've been slaughtered here.

polaris_x

thirty bills ... check out the grist article i posted on top of page 9 ...

he's part of the group of people that think these scientists (not sure what he thinks about other scientists who are in academia) are only supporting AGW in order to get grants and/or to further a liberal conspiracy to perpetuate big gov't ... and that an article written by a big oil shill is the same as one from a climatogist who's been peer reviewed and published in respected journals ...

the article states that no matter what you say - it will be hard to convince him otherwise ... and it's played out in this thread ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... and yet he is arguing against it ... how can you reason with someone like that?

inlet13

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.

No, debt is a number. In fact, it's a measurable and accurate number.

he still stands wrote:

CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.

I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.

he still stands wrote:

there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;

You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.

In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.

When you state, "... the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists" you have officially gone off the deep end.

I'll agree with you that we cannot satisfy the certainty of a global warming epidemic with 100% assuredness; but you'll have to agree with me that- especially with the stakes so extremely high- there is more than enough evidence to proceed with extreme caution. Not heeding the warnings is stupid. Flat out stupid.

The people arguing with you aren't mindless sheep. In contrary, the people who would suggest global warming is not occurring are in denial. Ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to climate change and continuing with our glutenous ways is akin to playing Russian Roulette. Odds are you aren't going to get a bullet in the head, but why would you still play?

Come on, man... you've been slaughtered here.

No, I haven't gone off the deep-end by claiming certain global warming backers (particularly here) are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. They have their religion, you may have yours. Both parties KNOW they are 100% right. Any doubt or points to the contrary are met with harsh criticism and immediately dismissed due to their results (not immediately due their methodology). It's one in the same.

Well, if you say you agree we can't be 100% certain on this, you're not in the majority here in this thread. As for whether I agree with you that we should proceed with caution, I think it's a question. Here's my take, certainly "IF" global warming is correct, we should proceed with caution. But, we don't know IF it's correct, which you just pointed out. Also, there's reason to say, there's more to be lost for proceeding with caution that to be gained. For example, I can think of two or three reasons: Growth of government regulations (and gov't in general) and power, regulations effects on the economy, and future techonlogy (if man can damage, can they heal it with new technology). So, on net, since we don't know for sure if this is exists and what causes it if it does and won't, I'd be just as cautious to jump on board the global warming train as to jump off it. The economy is in the shitter, government is growing at leaps and bounds and people are unemployed. You ask the jobless if they would rather enact legislation that's good for the environment or get a job. Because the truth is, whether you're blind to it or not, there is a real trade off between the two.

I don't think all of the people arguing with me are mindless sheep. I think a few can't admit that there's a chance they could be wrong, however. To those, I do equate them with fervent religious fundamentalists. Further, I'm not in denial about anything. In fact, I've said it before in this thread, I don't really know one way or the other on this issue. That said, I think it's silly to think this issue is closed. I'm open minded on it. I've read both sides, and I have my own theory. But, I'm not willing to bet heavily one way or the other because of the reasons I've listed repetitively in this thread.

Finally, acting like a discussion on a message board has winners and losers is silly. I know I'm ridiculously out-numbered here. But, outside of this left-leaning bubble, I'd bet more would agree with my take than the opposite.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

The earth does cycle. The 'spike' we are living at the current moment is much more dramatic than any spike we can recall through scientific research. It doesn't take a smart man to look at our patterns of consumption and determine that the Earth cannot sustain such.

With recycling efforts and making a greener earth... there is industry as well- big industry: some of it old, some refined, some entirely new! It would be the 'old guard' (major oil companies, etc.) attempting to preserve their way of life that would be resistant to the notion of climate change because it doesn't fit with their ability to make a living.

Inlet, you are well-spoken, but I truly feel you are misdirected here- clinging to the notion that maybe we are wrong. You are correct that the possibility might exist that what we are currently witness to (polar ice caps crumbling into the sea, etc.) is a natural cycle that we have had little impact on; however, with the life of the planet at stake, I'm not going to be a gambling man. I'll error on the side of caution and take the safe bet instead of 'waiting and seeing' until 100% conclusive evidence is shown to me. The percentages weigh heavily towards explaining what is occurring right now- I don't need any more. I believe what the majority of experts tell me and what I can deduce from common sense.

markin ball

inlet13 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.

No, debt is a number. In fact, it's a measurable and accurate number.

he still stands wrote:

CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.

I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.

he still stands wrote:

there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;

You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.

In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.

What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.

brianlux

Accurate measurements of CO2 in the environment have been taken on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958. Charts of these measurement are available here, through this site provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.

The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.

he still stands

markin ball wrote:

What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.

now we're just being fucking silly, eh?

If the guy won't even admit that "gas" is a real thing, a concept, a tangible property that actually exists within the atmostphere... and not a construct invented by the mind (like the ratio of revenue to expenses) then there's no point in discussing this anymore.