By the way, this all happened when Clayton said...
"I know your type. How about climate change. Even though climate is not your field I bet you have decided human induced climate change is fantasy. Why not go after the scientists for that."And of course my answer is that I think we have in the past...
G2A EPA Moratorium and Ads
G2A Could I be Mistaken
G2A Correlation vs Causation
13 comments:
As for global warming, I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion either way. John
____________________
The comment which I found astoundingly ignorant for a blogger with a science background was this one:
As for global warming, I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion either way."
Really? I saw in a recent poll that 2/3 of adults now accept reality of climate change. Did you know that 10 of 11 of the warmest winters on record have happened since 2000. Laurie
___________________
I agree that the climate changes. Ask the dinosaurs... Now the question is what is the cause?
I don't think there were any humans or CFCs back then, yet the climate was a changing. John
I am not smart enough to know that cause for certain... And from what I have read the jury is still out. John
_________________
John, have you been relying on J. for your information re global warming? As I am not a climatologist I turn to the experts on this issue. Here is an excerpt from a old article from
CNN Scientists agree
"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role." Laurie
I found this statement interesting...
"However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran."
So those that Publish and make their living Studying it are more convinced than those that do not. What other incentive could then drive their beliefs and findings?
By the way I do agree that humans do impact the world and climate, the question is whether this causation factor is significant enough to justify all the costs we are incurring to change it.
And I think world system will self correct at some point. Just like it has before.
I know at the outset that I am not going to change the minds of people who believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming (CAGW) as a matter of religious faith. Those who believe that mankind has the power to destroy what God created don't have a lot of faith in God anyway, IMHO. For those who understand science, I suggest to you that CAGW is not science. The entire "catastrophic" part of the theory (and scientifically speaking it is not even a theory yet, just an untested hypothesis) rests on PREDICTIONS made by computer models for 100 years hence. We cannot know that these models perfectly predict the climate 100 years from now until 100 years have elapsed. We do know that the models have many flaws and built-in assumptions, trying to mathematically represent an incredibly complex system, and that short-term predictions of these models have been unimpressive in their reliability. Scientifically speaking, CAGW talks loudly but doesn't even speak the language.
For those who do not understand science, or "climate science" at least, it can be confusing and people are easily misled by the propaganda effort – nothing like an oncoming catastrophe to sell newspapers or get politicians elected to "prevent" it. To avoid being steamrolled by headlines like "80% of scientists agree" or something similar, we have to apply a little bit of critical thinking, which not that many people want to do and, it seems, even fewer are capable of doing, IMHO. Realize that when large numbers of climatologists agree that the earth is warming it is because they have looked at the past temperature records and OF COURSE the earth is warming! It has been getting more or less warmer since the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, and particularly since the "little ice age" ended back in the 1600s. These things are part of natural cycles that have been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, with no human intervention whatsoever, so OF COURSE there is "climate change," because the climate always changes. Those seeking financial, political or resume-enhancing rewards like to conflate the notion of climate change and the notion of anthropogenic climate change in your mind, so they do not have to prove that human activity is the CAUSE of the climate change being observed. Besides, the climatologists, by definition, study the climate, NOT the cause of the climate. That is left to the climate scientists.
J. Ewing.
By the way did you notice that we started using the term "climate change" a few years back rather than "global warming"? Why do you suppose that is, when the only truly scientific basis for their claims is Arrhenius' greenhouse gas theory, which supports the notion that man-made CO2 would WARM the planet? It's simple, really. We had a string of very cold years that the Warmists couldn't explain, so they simply defined it away. Now, it doesn't matter whether the temperature goes up or down, it's all the fault of you humans for putting too much CO2 in the air! In the old days, this was the point where the flimflam man would be run out of town, tar and feathers in hot pursuit.
Okay, you say, but what about these climate scientists? Well, frankly, there aren't that many of them, and most of them are working on their computer models. Those models are highly useful things when they're able to tell me whether I need an umbrella tomorrow, or not, but they aren't quite "there" yet and in the meantime work on long-term predictions gives them extra working funds from government, manipulated by political opportunists, of course. The rest of the people making contributions to this are physicists, geologists, marine biologists and on and on. Everything exists, in some fashion, in the climate as a whole. [Did you ever wonder, by the way, how we MEASURE the global temperature? We know data from the surface measurements has been manipulated and tainted by "Climategate" and we know that the satellite measurements are more inclusive but don't show the same thing. The best data we have is the ice core samples, going back 400 to 600,000 years. This is the data that Al Gore uses to "prove" his theory, but it has a fundamental flaw. Closely examined, it reveals that temperatures go up, on average, 800 years BEFORE the concentration of CO2 does, and falls off 800 years before CO2 does. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE that CO2, man-made or otherwise, is the cause of temperature rise. Questions?
J. Ewing
John,
As someone else who is not an expert on climate change, I defer to the experts, global scientists across the globe, who all seem to agree on a set of basic principles linking human consumption to increased impact on the climate. One can always find a vocal minority of experts who disagree or have another viewpoint, in any field. But it is certainly a resounding majority of experts who have agreed on the basic tenets of climate change and how we can lessen the impact.
I defer to them!
Fine with me. I have no strong opinion on the topic.
Now how much money is it worth to slow these factors down?
What sacrifices should be made and by who?
Which experts can help us with these decisions?
By the way, since I am an Engineer I hope society keeps pumping money into developing all kinds of new and cool widgets for this. The diesel engine emission regs have kept us buried for 15+ yrs already and there are more years to go. Unfortunately this means that the equipment cost just keeps going up and us engineers are not working on improved features or effectiveness.
Thoughts?
You should never "defer to experts" unless they can make a cogent case for what they are trying to get you to do. The cost of reducing worldwide CO2 emissions to 1990 levels has been estimated at some $75 trillion. And, according to the "experts" at the IPCC, that would lower global temperatures 100 years from now by 0.02°! Now, you tell me if you can notice that kind of a difference in the temperature, and whether you are prepared to contribute $15,000 for every person in your family to achieve it. Perhaps you had better double that, because I am out. The cost of ameliorating any significant problems, IF AND WHEN they occur is vastly less, and 100% certain to address a real problem of climate change. Simply curbing man-made CO2 has not been shown, in any actual scientific study to reduce the global temperature 100 years from now. It is not scientifically nor logically possible to do so.
If you still want to defer to scientists, fine. There are 2000 scientists listed as part of the IPCC report, some of which have actually sued to have their names removed, and the "core group" are only about 200 in number. Meanwhile there are over 30,000 (or is it 40,000 now?) scientists who have signed the Oregon declaration declaring that the IPCC is full of baloney. It's pretty "overwhelming," all right, but not in the direction you think.
J. Ewing
Wow! So much misinformation. What is really frightening is that anyone can post anything on these blogs. How would an uninformed reader distinguish between reality and fantasy? I am not sure what the point is for having discussions in this format, equal weight is given to everyone regardless of their expertise and or experience.
This is why I love this format. You actually believe that your version of reality is BETTER or MORE REAL than J's version.
I used to be that way until I figured out that I wasn't that smart, and that people almost never intentionally lie or spread misinformation. The reality is that they actually BELIEVE their TRUTH is the REAL TRUTH. Just like you are...
I find this concept absolutely fascinating. That is why this blog is focused on self awareness and not trying to convince other people. I always hope that people are learning more about themselves and "their truths" as they try to logically defend them.
Now for the big question. Are you going to respect the deeply held beliefs of people that believe differently from you, or are you going to call it fantasy and misinformation?
I chose about 5 years ago to respect others and their beliefs. It does not mean I agree with them, as my long term contributors will attest to, however I will make an effort to see how my rationale and beliefs could be incorrect.
Here is a version of my favorite story. Full Cup And one of my favorite sayings... "not old people are wise"...
Now where is the information that supports your truth?
That favorite saying should have said... "Not all old people are wise"... (ie full cups stop learning)
Clayton said...
Wow! So much misinformation.
Really? Would you care to elaborate? I often have to concede that I use "slanted language" in what I post, but it is because I firmly believe what I "say." I have had many disagree with me on these issues, but very few have the facts and logic to defend that position.
J. Ewing
J,
As we have asked many times, you also could provide more evidence for your statements. It would definitely improve the quality of your argument.
OK, look up the chart of ice core data, often referred to as the "Vostok" data. Take a look at the graphs of temperature versus CO2 and, if you can read a graph, you will know that the whole theory of global warming is not only wrong, but backwards.
Feel free to look up the Oregon petition to see where the consensus lies.
Check out the Heartland Institute.
Read the IPCC report yourself. Notice that at no time do they prove a causal link from man-made CO2 to a global climate catastrophe 100 years from now. It is entirely a crystal ball gazing exercise based on assumptions. There won't be any evidence that this theory is correct until 100 years from now, if then. Right? Is simple logic going to be accepted as proof, here?
Don't be confused by those who claim, and they may be correct, that the world is getting warmer and then immediately take the flying logical leap to the notion that man-made CO2 is the CAUSE of it. Correlation is not causation; I hope we have established that?
J. Ewing
Post a Comment