Bitcoin Forum

What if you're wrong?

I get that some of the climate change data is a little sketchy, for instance using flawed models etc. I myself have been on the fence for years re: climate change, and whether we're causing it.

Although I don't fully believe in it, the majority of respected science journals (ie. Science, Nature etc.)have published a lot of evidence that suggests it could be happening.

So it makes sense for me to go with the assumption. I've heard that whole "green tax" angle. I don't buy it, simply because it is currently a lot more lucrative to use fossil fuels, rather than more expensive renewable energy resources. Maybe in the future, if fossil fuels do become scarce, we will need to switch to nuclear and renewable energy.

That's easy! If your wrong we watch the next extinction event unfold! Slowly at first, then an all out collapse of the food chain. Humans will go quite early in this process and if it's like earlier events, most life on Earth will perish.
It is likely that some microbes and maybe even an animal or two will survive, and over millions of years the Earth might become a living planet once again. That's the good news.  :-\

What happened on Venus was all the Venusians' fault, and they absolutely had the god-tier power to reverse what they started.

My problem is that Obama claims the "science is settled" on global warming when it clearly is not.  I dont think there is any conclusive evidence humans are causing "climate change" and that we are not just in a cyclical "warm period"

I don't agree that it's settled, but the general consensus seems to be that it is happening. I have access to a couple of decent journals re: climate change, and although I don't understand all the details, nearly all papers that I've read seem to back the theory.

Even without 100% conclusive evidence, I don't see many drawbacks to just assuming that we are causing climate change, and trying to switch to renewable and nuclear energy.

I agree, the problem traces back again, to corrupt govt.  See the article on the $535 million O gave to Solyndra, which of course failed so basically the money was given to his donors and supporters.  The govt is not trying to actually get us off fossil fuels, only trying to create the illusion that they are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/

The same thing with adding 10% ethanol to gas.  It burns less efficiently, and actually uses more gas to produce it, making it energy inefficient, not to mention it drives food prices up.  Yet its another illusion to make people think the govt is trying to help

Using fear is not a valid form of argument.

Exactly, bring me data and evidence, then we'll talk, by the way, at least he was decent enough to put human influenced instead of just claiming all the people who argue against it are the same, corrupt political interest groups and lobbying have completely ruined the climate change debate.

The earth climate has been changing all the time, with humans or without them, there is nothing to be afraid.

Even though you likely don't know what "a denier" is, you will not find any of them disagreein with you on more nuclear energy.

Who you will find disagreeing about more nuclear are the regressive anti-industrial factions of the environmental lobby, the Democratic party, and the influential factions from the Middle East, who want us buying their oil.  So you are actually on the side of those preventing progress - the Anti Nuclear Energy Side.

Don't worry, the Deniers will welcome you with open arms.  It's a lot of fun in this playground.

That is a good question what would be the worst that could happen and what would submitting to any changes being suggested even change if things are really that bad?  As far as I'm aware the answer is more regulation and taxation on the average citizen.  If you want to discuss an issue as serious as this you need to really discuss how the problem started and was allowed to get so bad IMO.

Care to elaborate just a bit? Your scare tactics might work on school children but grown ups like some actual evidence.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics.

To elaborate: The majority of evidence suggests that it's happening. There is also a small amount of evidence suggesting it's not. But, even if the majority is wrong, I don't see many downsides to trying to combat it anyway.

What if YOU are wrong? All it will cost is complete sacrifice of sovereignty of nations, global taxes, global banks, global government, and loss of many freedoms in addition to all the lives lost in the developing world, all based on a theory which can't be confirmed with empirical data. I look forward to watching you get your ass handed to you here.

Yes the climate change is happening, that doesn't mean it's going to be the end of the world, that's why people claim you're using scare tactics and actually it's something a lot of people who argue about climate change do.

Woah bit defensive there, like I said I don't necessarily believe it.

I don't really buy your apocalyptic predictions though, I mean all I see currently are governments pretending to care ("buy a bag for life", "put your TV off standby at night" blah blah blah). But they still seem to approve of huge industrial pollution via corporate energy companies and manufacturers.

I don't think we would really lose any freedoms, succumb to global banks/taxes etc. It doesn't fit into their agenda IMO; surely big banks and governments would prefer to exploit the most profitable energy sources ie. oil and gas?

No, they want to exploit every exploitable thing, and crush things which are marginally exploitable.

Well, I believe that the truth lies upon in the middle.
There is a climate change, but it may be slightly influenced by humans.
It is o common phenomenon on Earth for the climate to change over time.

You use the phrase "climate change deniers" which pretty clearly dictates to me where you get your information from, and telegraphs your bias. I am not defensive I am proactive. I am limiting the back and fourth practiced script you have and getting right to the point. The name of the game in government is control the opposition. That means both sides, red and blue.

 They are the industrialists, they are the environmentalists. They are everyone because they are nothing but a tool for the corporate state, and corporations can be anything, they are just words on paper with the backing of the law. They will exploit every angle to gain the objectives they desire. Pretty much all of public debate on any polarizing topic now days is a carefully managed Hollywood production with an agenda behind it other than what is publicly disclosed. It is all about fighting for that share of your brain space, and using your cognitive dissonance and dissatisfaction as a carrot and stick approach to keep the world moving to the beat of their drum. You can only see the world in 2 dimensions when they are exploiting multiple dimensions. You are being sold a narrative.

The only problem with that logic is that "combating" it according to your side would result in the creation of a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world. Not to mention lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of westerners. All for a hypothesis that has never been subjected to the rigors of hard scientific inquiry. In science you don't set out to prove a hypothesis, the goal is to disprove it. You don't manipulate data to make it fit that hypothesis and you don't impose your hypothesis on people simply because you feel the conversation should be over. The use of terms like "climate change deniers" etc. to control the conversation is quite revealing.     

^ This. Take some time and actually look at some of the proposed policies used to "combat" global warming and tell me again how there is nothing to lose. After all, without an enforcement mechanism, the law would only be a suggestion or a guideline and just serve as superficial dressing to cover actual environmental destruction.

It's also important to point out that specific attempts to control carbon emissions through government schemes such as cap and trade have failed, not succeeded.

Where's the Daleks to put a stop to "human influenced climate change" when you need them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjLxeTfbXSQ

I get that many climate models are flawed, and of course their results will not be entirely accurate - this is ongoing research and in theory should become more accurate as time goes on. I also would condemn any falsification/manipulation of data, as you say this is totally out of order in any scientific field.

By combating it, I'm mainly talking about using renewable/nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. I fail to see how this will create "a massive worldwide depression resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the third world."

Of course it will cost money, but it needn't be money from individuals in the form of any enforceable "green tax", if this is what you're implying. I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I genuinely don't see how renewables will cause worldwide depression. I would be against such a tax for individuals, but not necessarily for corporations who could afford it.

Also the fossil fuels will eventually run out, putting us in the same situation anyway, whether that's in 50 years or 500...

The energy companies make shitloads of profits on oil and gas, they should invest more of these profits into renewables and nuclear IMO. The reason they don't, is they know that it would take many years to ROI on renewables, while oil/gas is instant profit = the executives can pay off their mortgages in 5 years instead of 50 (OK bit of a simplistic explanation but you get the idea).

If it was up to me then I would say "legalize/tax weed in the UK and scrap the Trident nuclear program, then put 50% of the £100bn you just made into renewable energy and nuclear fusion research!!" (vote for me, vote for change ;D)

Personally I don't think we can change our habits as a species anyway, I think we better all hope that we aren't causing the climate change. If we are, then in the future we'll have to turn Greenland into a huge geoengineering plant, or send everyone to Mars or something...  ;D

 :D :D

Not a denier
Read enough of the Quest from Yergin to pretty much say that the data now backs up the accusations and was 20-30 years in the making where it was fuzzy before the models are closer to conclusive evidence for it.

But hmm move the planet like in futurama  ;D

if you are a denier, then you are just flat out wrong. an overwhelming majority of scientists say that climate change is man-made, and the science backs it up. something like 90%+ agreed on it.

the one who deny it.. i wouldn't be surprised if they were schills for the energy/oil industries.

also, i used to watch CNN.. when i started to notice how bullshit it was, was when they kept on running those exxon mobil commercials.

For anything you say that's true, you would first have to be able to define denier.  If you couldn't do it without creating strawman arguments, tough.

Having made that minor note, bolded statement above is enough of an exaggeration to be a lie.

how else could you interpret a denier? someone who says that burning fossil fuel, coal, and other energy forms is absolutely NOT causing the heat to be trapped by our ozone layer.

it's not an exaggeration. take a look at wikipedia, or listen to a vast majority of scientists speak. the only reason why there is any form of "dissent" is because companies worth billions of dollars are profiting from it, so they have a lot of money leftover to spread misinformation. i mean, shit, you probably can't watch any cable news channel without seeing an exxon mobil commercial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/

I guess you can be a denier in the sense you want to keep the status quo and not burn the economy now and the consumerism and standard of living we in the west presently have.

But in exchange we will damage the ecosystem for the future with pollution and what not and contaminate the land/water reservoirs to get the oil and gas supplies from deep underground.

So economic denial-ism for climate change.

i'm not entirely sure about this issue.. if we invest in greener energy, that could create new industries and help with the economy. the only problem is that the top top 3 oil producers are worth $1 trillion dollars.. if they end up investing even .1% of that into lobbying for looser regulations or even stopping green energy industries from forming, that's still a billion dollars to buy politicians and brueaucrats.

We have invested billions into "green" energy with no success. It is simply not cost efficient to produce green energy.

that's misinformation. solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper (with investments), and they are very effective in germany, even though there's a lot of rain in that area.

maybe instead of invading the middle east and spend trillions of dollars in that region of the world, we should take that money and put it into renewable resources. but nah, there's more money in invading countries and stripping them of their natural resources.

in california, with the rising cost of energy, people are getting more and more solar panels by the day.. and it's saving them money.

Solar panels are getting cheaper because the government is increasing their subsides for them. You need to remember that when you buy a solar panel you need to place it somewhere (eg: on land that you own/rent) and this costs money as too (this will get more expensive over time).

Solar works but the problem is that it lacks intermittency which is that it provides power consistently regardless of the condition
If its cloudy solar does not produce much power or at night unlike gas and oil which is stable and provides energy regardless of the conditions a steady supply of power is a must.

Wind power is popular but its noisy apparently and a large anti-wind coalition is forming against its implementation near peoples houses.
From the CBC a documentary on that issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episodes/wind-rush

* Comments on this documentary suggest some FUD so will just leave the note that in general the noise a wind farm can make can give people grievances who live nearby.
Guess you need to think who put the money into the documentary at the same time.

heard of scale economies? panels are currently more expensive than conventional means of energy... but the gap is shrinking more and more because more money is invested in improving the technology.. and to add to that, mmore people buying any product = cheaper prices.


there's a reason why solar panels are still successful in germany (where it rains a lot). read this...

Cloudier locations are still a good match for solar

Germany gets only about as much sunshine as the state of Alaska, but Germans have successfully installed about 25 gigawatts of solar power– half of the entire world’s supply. Portland, Oregon is known for its rainy, dreary winters, but is another good location for solar power: over a full year, despite the winter weather, Portland gets as much sunshine as the average U.S. city. Cities like Portland also have slightly cooler weather than average, which is an advantage for solar panels. Because of the electronics inside, solar panels work best when they aren’t too hot. In a city with extreme summer heat, solar is a little less efficient, which is part of the reason why solar panels in cloudy San Francisco can actually produce more power over a year than the slightly sunnier, hotter city of Sacramento.

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-do-solar-panels-work-in-cloudy-weather/

Humans are not gonna die because of a climate change. The civilisation as we know it will die and that's probably a good thing.

The climate is not stable, it is always changing. For example in Antartic there is now lot of ice and extremely cold:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/12/coldest-antarctic-june-ever-recorded/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

Ice reflects the Sun’s rays up into the atmosphere and out to space, which keeps solar radiation from warming the Antartic so it is possible that we are going to see even more cold (and more ice) in near future.

Anyway if AGW exist it's not a good justification to fascism.

One cold month does not prove any sort of long-term trend has reversed - this looks like a couple of sensationalist sources reporting on short-term anomalous outliers. There is objective evidence that shows that the Earth has been warming over the last 50 years, the huge majority of scientists accept this, the main question is whether humans are causing it.

Predictably, the Daily Mail comments are all raving about this idea of "green tax" (Christ, that cesspool is totally full of idiots that think they know best...) I keep hearing that "AGW is a scam to get more taxes out of us!"

It doesn't fit with Big Energy's agenda, so they wouldn't benefit.
The government wouldn't benefit as they would spend the money on green energy.

IF artificial global warming is a hoax, then who would benefit from these taxes (other than the guys who make the solar panels/windmills etc.)?

The government can "spend" money on green energy and do nothing more than line the pockets of their donors/friends.  Look at Solyndra, half a billion spent on a company that went under.  No green jobs, no green energy being produced, only money wasted.

And the gvt will profit from these taxes, by funneling the money through the EPA, spending probably 10-20x more than the solar panels/windmills should cost if done by private organizations.

Well, first of all, the ozone layer is not where or what "traps heat."  So go look your science up on that.  Secondly, there are no people that claim that "someone who says that burning fossil fuel, coal, and other energy forms is absolutely NOT causing the heat to be trapped by our...<<insert proper term for atmosphere>>"

...thus this is a classic example of a strawman argument, isn't it?

Then you say...

the only reason why there is any form of "dissent" is because companies worth billions of dollars are profiting from it

But that's ridiculous because there is dissent on windmills due to their appearance, their killing birds.  There is dissent on electric cars because  of battery disposal issues.  There is dissent on corn based ethanol because it's plain stupid.  There is dissent on "global warming" because it hasn't warmed for two decades.   In other words, there are many, many real world issues where people can and should speak the truth.

This.  The most likely proof that they have been just lining their friends' pockets is the lack of useful results from the spending.

alright, you got it on a technicality on the ozone layer. it absorbs UV rays instead of letting light and heat into our atmosphere.

you have a point with the "dissent" issue. just because energy companies make a lot of money, it does not necessarily mean that's the only reason why so much money is spent into convincing people that carbon monoxide is not bad for you. but i can't think of any other reasons, and makes the most sense to me.

i'm also unsure how you arrived to the conclusion that the planet hasn't warmed up for two decades. i'm pretty sure that there studies after studies that the climate has been changing. no one (i dont even think republicans) are arguing against that.

fossil fuel has a 95%+ consensus (at least based on scientific papers surveyed) as being the cause of climate change. what's your rebuttal for that? is it some conspiracy that obama and al gore engineered to help out their friends at solyndra?

Here's a quick and easy home experiment by Bill Nye to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8

More likely it is just the corruption caused by lobbyists from the corn industry.  I wouldn't read any more into it about government conspiracies.  Just assholes trying to make more money at the cost to humanity.

I'm actually sorry to tell you this.

But this "experiment" is fraudulent.

Hmm how so anyways I'm curious enough can you provide proof of this experiment being fraudulent
Different gases retain and reflect heat at different rates so I can't see where the fake part came from unless I am missing something.
Unless you meant the affordable clean energy alternative part then I can see what you meant.

Its Global warming potential Spendulus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

Carbon dioxide has a GWP of exactly 1 (since it is the baseline unit to which all other greenhouse gases are compared).
Methane    12.4    86(20 years)    34 (100 Years)

Note that a substance's GWP depends on the timespan over which the potential is calculated. A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect but for longer time periods as it has been removed becomes less important. Thus methane has a potential of 34 over 100 years but 86 over 20 years; conversely sulfur hexafluoride has a GWP of 22,800 over 100 years but 16,300 over 20 years (IPCC TAR). The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere. This is often not precisely known and hence the values should not be considered exact. For this reason when quoting a GWP it is important to give a reference to the calculation.

EDIT: I think I got what you meant the video should have said Methane  

Global-warming potential (GWP) is a relative measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere. It compares the amount of heat trapped by a certain mass of the gas in question to the amount of heat trapped by a similar mass of carbon dioxide. A GWP is calculated over a specific time interval, commonly 20, 100 or 500 years. GWP is expressed as a factor of carbon dioxide (whose GWP is standardized to 1). For example, the 20 year GWP of methane is 86, which means that if the same mass of methane and carbon dioxide were introduced into the atmosphere, that methane will trap 86 times more heat than the carbon dioxide over the next 20 years

They needed to clarify that better

I see greenhouse theory more like as a combination of bad science, politics and hype.

It is true that Earth has been warming over the last 50 years, but it is not clear what effect carbon dioxide has to that. And now there are some signs that warming has already stopped. For example if you look this picture: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html  you can see that in the Antartic there are now more ice than ever. Also the Artic ice has started slowly recover: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/extent_n_running_mean_amsr2_regular.png

I've done this experiment many times. How's it fraudulent?

Here's some recent research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140728153933.htm

man, if he ends up typing 10 words and you end up typing a thesis as an argument.. it might have been a troll attempt. if that were the case, i'd find humor in that  :D

Sorry, but I don't think this is a valid argument, I'll explain why.

What you're saying is that (correct me if I'm wrong), a green tax is just another way for the government to steal tax money through corruption, by lying to us about climate change.

The government already has many lucrative avenues to steal our tax money, and energy companies already have a monopoly whereby they can basically charge what the hell they like for power. It doesn't make sense to me that governments would purposely create a climate change hoax, for the sole reason of collecting extra taxes under a "green tax" moniker. There are so many easier ways that they could steal our money, they control the budget. For example they could, (and almost certainly do), use the massive defense budget to line their friends' pockets (eg the friends who work for Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc.), with contracts for weapons.

What happened with Solyndra was unfortunate to say the least, and could well have involved corruption (forgive me I don't know the details), but really your argument is against corruption, not against any sort of climate change policy.

To use a loose BTC-based analogy:

Many people say "Bitcoin is bad because it facilitates money laundering and purchase of drugs/guns". While this is technically true, the easiest way to launder money and buy drugs is with the trusty USD. So the problem lies with the crimes themselves, not with the medium.

In the same way, you are correct in saying that the government could use climate change to facilitate corrupt tax methods. However they already have better ways to do this. So the problem is corruption in the government, not the medium in which they carry out this corruption.

To repeat myself, it seems far more likely to me that governments would want to cover up any evidence of human influenced climate change, to line the pockets of their friends who work for Big Energy, and possibly to allow Big Energy to do whatever they want, for a small corrupt fee to the politician. These friends are a lot more rich and powerful than the friends who make PV cells and windmills after all...

LOL that is a point.  No troll, though, simply facts.

http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2012/12/11/al-gorebill-nye-climate-101-video-found-to-be-fraudulent-how-you-can-replicate-the-experiment-yourself/

Note an important distinction.  The experiment is a hoax.  This does not prove or disprove global warming, etc.  That these guys thought they could put over on the public a hoax like this does show a bit of what they think of you and me.

It is also interesting that it seems to take "deniers" to actually critically examine the "experiment", attempt to replicate it and find the fraud.  "Believers" seem to just take it all on faith.  This is an essential proof that Deniers are Believers best friends...

One does not take science on faith.

You're right, they think very little of the average persons intelligence/ability to reason and look for facts.  Unfortunately they are right about the majority of people who will blindly accept what they are told, whether through the nightly news, this youtube video (clearly global warming propaganda aimed at the 20-30 crowd who can relate to Bill Nye from watching him in their youth), or other media campaigns.  They have succeeded though in being able to push an agenda/message and really put very little effort into swaying public opinion on most topics.  Most people will watch this video and just take it as truth, no further investigation necessary.

Just to be clear I will repeat again:  This disprove of the "proof" of the video does not prove or disprove global warming, it just shows us some things about the people involved, their attitudes.

But it clearly shows the spirit of critical investigation which is in most "Deniers" mindsets.

Again repeating.  Deniers are your best friends, as far as finding the truth is involved.

In science being a "denier" means you understand the simple logical principle that presumption is negative.

A more appropriate term would be 'skeptic' but that wouldn't allow you to Godwin-by-proxy and allude to skeptics being akin Neo-Nazis.

We hear your cute dog-whistle.  And to quote the great WF Buckley


Here's a nice big clue for you Marxist public school brainwashed armchair eschatologists:

https://i.imgur.com/HXT7QgV.jpg

95% of scientists in climate related fields vs. fox news and iCEBREAKER?

I'd say it's settled.

Science is never settled.  Science is an eternally ongoing process of discovery and refinement.

Only ideologies are settled.

Your quasi-religious belief in eschatology will not cause the world to end any more than previous doom peddlers' did.

'Settled science' is an oxymoronic anti-concept.


It's the sun, stupid.

You just made me realize how much I've missed you.

*hugs*

Heh, we do have a lot of great fun around here don't we?   8)

Wait, it's only 95% that has to be taken on and you already got'em?

What's left for ME?

I don't know why people want to argue the deniers are wrong instead of just showing the evidence that proves their point.  They will call people names all day long but when it comes to supplying any irrefutable evidence the story is always the same.. there is none.  What is even more unsettling is the conflict in the scientific field over this topic.

Stop with the 95% scientist bullshit, it's a logical fallacy.

Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Bro, you've got science all wrong.  Science is not an ideology, it is a methodical process.  Certainty does not exist in science.

"Irrefutable evidence" does not exist and is an anti-concept much like the asinine self-refuting phrase 'settled science' dismissed earlier.

"Irrefutable evidence" applies in philosophy and logic (relations of ideas), not in empirical studies (matters of facts).

This famous distinction is called Hume's Fork:


Thus, "conflict in the scientific field" is the most healthy, natural thing in the world.

If the scientific field lacked conflict, it would not be scientific but rather something else entirely.

It's cute to watch scientific illiterates, who don't understand the basics of empiricism and often confuse synthetic and analytical propositions, call other people rude names.

It must really suck to be so profoundly ignorant that one is reduced to calling people offensive names like 'Denier' while believing that character assassination is a valid form of discourse.   ;D

OK, let me try and clarify some points.

First off, I don't think the science is settled. Although I am firmly leaning towards "It's happening, and it's probably due to greenhouse gases produced by humans", I am trying to keep an open mind here and I try to read all evidence for and against without prejudice. I think we should be researching this as much as we can, for many years into the future.

I use the word "denier" to describe people that think they know 100% that we're being told a lie. Unless you have a PhD in climatology/geography or similar, or can fully understand every detail/computer model in every climate/geography scientific journal, then sorry, but you're not really qualified to say "Open your eyes, it's obvious that it's due to [insert other cause here]".

I don't pretend to know for sure one way or the other, I'm just making an educated opinion on what I know, and what I read by other people that I believe know better than me (mainly scientists/climatologists, definitely not journalists or politicians).

The real point of this thread was not to start another climate change argument, it was to investigate the issues we might face by our choices going into the future. For example, what might happen if it's true and we do nothing, or what might happen if it's false and we do act.

The only reasonable argument I've read so far involves the hypothetical pain/suffering of many people, due to humanity choosing renewable energy over fossil fuels. I'd appreciate it if someone who believes this could try and refute my post above (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697377.msg8124208#msg8124208), because it's an argument that I've heard from many people and it just doesn't make sense to me.

Some of you seem to think that I'm trying to argue/get a reaction out of people, I'll admit that my OP did come across as a little provocative, but that was not the intention (and as you can see I made a follow up post clarifying my position more clearly).

So let's keep "who's right/wrong" out of this thread (There's the reddit climate change thread for that), and try and look at the "what-ifs"...

First, it's extremely easy, as you've seen in this thread, to point out lies we are being told.  However, that really does not prove or disprove any fundamental questions.

Second, don't place too much credence in the "PdD in climatology".  That actually makes me laugh, because the guys that go into that field really are not the sharpest tools in the shed, and second, because that doesn't make them an expert in glaciers, sediment, atmospheric effects of gases...in any of a large number of scientific fields, unless by chance it is the specific field they studied.

"PdD in physics" is much more handy regarding the fundamental assumptions and questions of "global warming".

The computer models are not really helpful.  This is a very, very politicized field.

I suggest reading

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

for fun and entertainment.  Example as to why, let me quote the first two reader responses to the article linked to above.


R. Shearer says:   
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 am   

Someone asked here before, “What is the chance that a natural cooling is exactly cancelling out AGW?”


Leonard Weinstein says:   
August 2, 2014 at 8:21 am   

R. Shearer,
It does not matter if natural cooling exactly cancelled out AGW, or if there is no significant AGW. The supporters of CAGW insisted that CO2 is the main force that drives average temperature, and insisted it would totally dominate any natural variation (except short term volcanic effects). Skeptics have contended that either the forcing was much smaller than promoted, so that it was not a real problem, or that natural variation dominated the human CO2 contribution, so that it was not the main controlling method. These skeptics positions have been supported with actual data evidence, although which of the two factors is more important is not fully resolved.

The issue was the possible onset of a major rising temperature problem due to CO2 increase, and it has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is significant reason to think an average cooling trend for at least several decades is more likely than a warming trend, following the plateau.

Doom-peddling climate change threat construction is just a giant scam to increase government control over our lives.

Didn't you see the ClimateGate headlines a few years ago?  They got caught red-handed politicizing and faking science!

It's settled: Climate change is caused by the sun, and sometimes volcanoes.  Not man.  Because ClimateGate.

I learnt everthang I needes har.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

An fom dis dude two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

So if Earth was the size of a small ball, if the Sun was at the same distance as the Moon, if the amount of CO2 was at least ( I am guessing, eyeballing the CO2 pump and the volume of air inside the container) twice or three time the volume of the Earth's total atmosphere then there will be proof Nye's experiment is settled?

Interesting...

Edit: I see it was debunked already. Came late into this party :)

Also, if you increase heat retention in the atmosphere by any means, including co2, the atmosphere expands, and there is more radiant losses to space because of the larger surface area of that expanded envelope.
Technically here we could say that the gas molecules have 1/2 their energy in kinetic and half in potential, but both increase when it gets hotter.  Potential energy means height against gravity, for an atmosphere.

This is a simple language proof that clouds rule climate, by the way.  That's why the CERN Cloud experiments were so important.  Real scientists know these details, the 8th grade CO2 argument is for the simple people.

How dare you suggest the existence of negative-feedback mechanisms which produce stability and reduce the effect of fluctuations?

How much are the Koch Bros paying you to destroy the world?   >:(

The Science is Settled^TM.  Obey the consensus, or you will be called a (*cough*Holocaust*cough*) Denier, capisce?

LOL... I guess I could .... okay, confession.  See msg for a laugh...

heh, great minds and all that

So remember...it's not warming that means all that heats being stored up, like in a pressure cooker, way down in the deep.  And it's going to burst out, when GAIA says.  Then, like the climate whipsaws, and billions die.

Wait...okay I'm in the real world here, right, not the made up world? 

Forget all that.  LOL...

There is a different angle that avoids that whole messy argument about humans changing the weather or not.

For hundreds of thousands of years we have been going through periods of heating and cooling, commonly known as ice ages. Roughly speaking, the cold periods are ten times as long as the warm periods. We are currently near the end of a warm period. If the alarmists are right that we are warming the planet, then that's a good thing because it provides a non-zero chance that we can slow down or stop the next ice age. We may even have done so already. And if they are wrong then efforts to reverse it is a waste of money. So keep those furnaces burning. A new ice age would be a far greater disaster than their small minds can comprehend.

Okay, let's develop this concept.  Let's accept two alarmist arguments, something like the "worst case of the Warmers" happens, 5F temperature increase and "billions die".

Let's assume we have another the planet pivots to the start of the Ice Age, in 3000AD and it lasts 100,000 years.  Further assume all people live 100 years.

CASE A:  Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.

Population keeps increasing to say 20B year 3000AD.  Ice age happens, hardly anyone lives.

CASE B:  Warmers fail planet heats up 5F.  By year 2100 3B have died.  Population is steady at 4B until year 103,000.

Hmm....

Case A: Warmers get us to stop increasing carbon.
In the year 3000 it doesn't matter anymore if there's a ice age or not because the technology will look like magic to us

probably the key question is the amount of lost heat when the planet enters the ice age part of the mischelovich (sp??) cycle, and how that might compare with heat added to the atmosphere through additional co2.

however if "deniers" are right, and additional co2 has a low effect, that might not stop an ice age.

I believe the climate is warming, but I'm not sure it's as bad of a thing as people make it out to be. It's been warmer before. We need to use common sense in fighting it. Puting more people in poverty is not a reasonable price to pay for a slight reduction in US emissions that will be more than canceled out by china alone.

The main problem of global warming is the coastline will move up
It opens up arctic shipping and those sort of benefits that help with trade, but at the same time if Islands get flooded over and people need to repopulate that brings about other problems.

Places like Kiribati are a good example of that problem.
http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963

Right. But the issue is we really don't have any solutions. It would probably be easier to provide aid and relocation to non-wealthy coastal communities than to stop climate change. I think it's likely that over time emissions will drop without government intervention in the developed world. If, however, we take drastic measures with the economy as a casualty, we will probably reduce standards of living more than global warming.

In addition to opening up arctic shipping, it would probably allow more food production because crops could be grown farther north which would probably let us grow more extra crops than would be lost in the south. Unfortunately I live in the south, so I have mixed feelings about that...  <<< My humble and poorly informed opinion.

I actually have to ask, IS ANY OF THIS EVEN TRUE?

Here is a buzz phrase from one of the articles on the Islands of Kiribati.

And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.

Since the islands are 6 feet above sea level, this implies a 6 foot sea level rise in 11 years.

No, that isn't going to happen.

Everywhere you look, there just seem to be more and more liars.

Well even the bible of the oil industry Daniel Yergin's the quest and the prize point out that there is an issue there, but do not mention Kiribati that said the submergence of an island would be logical if ice is melting it has to go somewhere. (Ice is denser than water)
Put a glass of water in the freezer let it thaw and it expands accelerate the melting rate and you get the 100 year timeline they expect.

Perhaps the warming is not at the pace we expect it to go now but it is a possible eventuality, anyways with people relocating I can see it working in some cases but not all cases since the Global South has it's issues with the Global North for various reasons.
However cooperation does happen so I'll keep a neutral stance on those issues.
_

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.html

The immense weight of Greenland’s ice sheet pushes the island down into the ocean, so as the ice sheet melts and the weight decreases, the island rises. Melting ice and warmer weather are reshaping Greenland’s geography, making once-frozen land arable. The thaw is also opening up access to formerly iced-over reserves of oil, zinc, gold, diamonds and uranium. There is a small but growing political movement in Greenland to harness the new wealth of resources as part of a push for independence.

Some gain where others lose
_

http://danielyergin.com/history-of-climate-change/
For more reading on the history of Global warming

All said I'm more for the efficiency argument myself, it really is the third energy source.

The importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world.

Let me be clear.  Very clear, and let's settle this.  Science does not say, anywhere, even as a minority opinion, that oceans will rise 6' by 2025.  Nowhere.  Not even alarmist science.  Not 3', either.

Look at the IPCC reports and the range of possible sea rise increases cited and projected there.  Look at the issue summarized in Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

We are looking at a possible rise by 2025 of 33 millimeters.  About an inch at current rates.

That's why I suggest that we just call lying, lying.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#sealevel
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/ScenarioSLRGraph.jpg

Regional and local factors will influence future relative sea level rise for specific coastlines around the world. For example, relative sea level rise depends on land elevation changes that occur as a result of subsidence (sinking) or uplift (rising). Assuming that these historical geological forces continue, a 2-foot rise in global sea level by 2100 would result in the following relative sea level rise:

    2.3 feet at New York City
    2.9 feet at Hampton Roads, Virginia
    3.5 feet at Galveston, Texas
    1 foot at Neah Bay in Washington state

Relative sea level rise also depends on local changes in currents, winds, salinity, and water temperatures, as well as proximity to thinning ice sheets.

But your right that is an alarmist quote estimates have it at 0.4 FT by 2025 For the Baseline the highest ones we see are at 2.1 over the same duration for a case study area in Charleston
http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter4.pdf

The high end of 6 feet occurs at 2075

Also checked my sources they were fine, just to be clear this buzz word stuff came from some blog I didn't source from 2009 with no sourcing of course so just some FUD poster.
And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.
http://discover-planet.blogspot.ca/2009/12/global-warming-threatens-kiribati.html#comment-form

The weather has always change dramatically, all theories have been proved wrong in the last 50years even the very recent ones
The associate of climate change only accept people that already believe their theories and they make studies to prove their theories, not to find the truth

See 1st bolded.  I think you missed a full stop, this is what you meant?

Most likely is 0.4' by 2025 for the baseline.  The highest alarmist estimate is 2.1' by 2025.

But even your article quoted is riddled through with falsehoods.  It claims sea level rise is 0.12cm per year.  This is coupled with 0.13 cm per year in land sinking to get 0.25cm per year.

For the Charleston case study area, Hicks and others (1978, 1983) have estimated that the total sea level rise since 1922 has been 0.25 cm/yr (0.1 in/yr).*  *Based on a global (eustatic) rise of 0. 12 cm/yr (0.05 in/yr) plus local subsidence of 0. 13 cm/yr (0.05 in/yr).

For there to be 0.4' of sea level rise for Charleston by 2025, the book you quote from would have to have been written in 1966.

2014-1966 = 48 years * 0.1 in/yr = 4.9 inches
0.4 ft * 12 in/ft = 4.8 inches

See 2nd bolded above.  How in the world can you start a reply with actual facts, and end up repeating that lie?

No you don't.

Anyway let me conclude this subject on a positive not.  

IF - - IF ice was melting and sea levels were then rising in a problematic sense (which they are NOT), the solution is to change the weather over the regional area of Australia, moving water inland and turning that huge continent into a paradise, where now it is mostly desert.  

Water does not have to go to the ocean.  Part of it goes into and over land.

There's a 21st century engineering problem for ya.

The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko.

I didn't repeat the lie unless you got confused about where the FUD is and what part is Science.

The 2025 quote was something Splendulus inserted in there when talking about random FUD examples that I was replying to.
(Also checked my sources they were fine, just to be clear this buzz word stuff came from some blog I didn't source from 2009 with no sourcing of course so just some FUD poster.)

Clarifies it
I was wondering where he got that quote from since it wasn't in any of my articles what I meant when it was from some blog I didn't source.
So went to figure out where that FUD came from and  went to get the source of the quote.
Unless it was something previous that was incorrect then point that part out.


Australia becoming green is a benefit but I guess we might need to make a list of Pros and Cons then sometime are you thinking a California in the outback where the Kangaroos are mate?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-change-turning-desert-green/4798930



"The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko."

Curious how the bolded part works in practice can't really control where the smoke stack fumes go we saw that in the 1970s with Acid Rain unless you meant countries can get regional agreements on these sort of problems
https://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=83930AC3-1

Good luck with China though wonder how you would solve Asian Dust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Dust

Asian Dust (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles. These clouds are then carried eastward by prevailing winds and pass over China, North and South Korea, and Japan, as well as parts of the Russian Far East. Sometimes, the airborne particulates are carried much further, in significant concentrations which affect air quality as far east as the United States.

In the last decade or so, it has become a serious problem due to the increase of industrial pollutants contained in the dust and intensified desertification in China causing longer and more frequent occurrences, as well as in the last few decades when the Aral Sea of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan started drying up due to the diversion of the Amu River and Syr River following a Soviet agricultural program to irrigate Central Asian deserts, mainly for cotton plantations.

OR
http://kotaku.com/chinas-pollution-is-making-japanese-air-all-crappy-1531371641

Bolded part above about 2025, yes I understand that.  But then your technical article with the 0.4', that didn't compute either.  I honestly don't know why, just was obliged to point it out.  I think you can see my point about gross mis statements of anything remotely near fact in the area of climate science reporting, and sometimes in the science itself.

As for the Australia issue, certainly regional climate is one hell of an impossibility in the some areas with multiple countries, that's why I mentioned AU.  It's a rather unique situation down there, huge chunk of land, mostly desert, almost everyone on the east coast, a few on the west, nothing in between.   Yet sea winds blow inward just like they do elsewheres.  Main problem is, no mountain ranges.

Google "rabbit fence", quite interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html

Coming back to this and your right there are a fair share of sourcing errors in climate science reporting
The ones that stand out for me are the 2035 prediction for Himalayan Glaciers which was bunked by an India report
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

And of course what preceded that Climategate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

So there are definite points of contention to debate.

And googled the rabbit fence it was interesting stuff those pesky wabbits ah had a good old elmer fudd moment
I must admit Australia seems a bit weird but I'm guessing it worked so guess good on them.

From your article I see what you mean now by different climates being possible depending on the vegetation and strata of the landforms which could also impact weather patterns and design an excellent point with climate there definitely are more factors to consider than what is seen initially.

_
And ah the answer to my pondering was at the end of that article ^_^
The bunny fence, as it turns out, failed to prevent rabbits from entering the farmland, but it has successfully blocked kangaroos and emus.

Darn wabbits XD

It's because "Deniers point out errors" that you need "Deniers", lol.  The very idea of "settled science" is totally anti scientific, and quite dangerous. 

It happens that "climate science", which isn't even really a good term, as it aggregates dozens of disciplines into a false generality, is where this drama is being played out.

RE Australia, yes I believe the continent could be Terraformed, over some period of time and after a huge amount of study and engineering.  The curious issue of the "Rabbit fence", NO SCIENTISTS predicted the divergent cloud formations.  Very interesting.

If you are in the mood to get really mad at people who should and purport to know better, check out the uber-smug groupthink here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism

Rational?  More like AlarmistCultWiki...   ::)

Well, ya.  I'm not impressed by the science there at all.

More like a set of poor premises selected to create a desired conclusion.  For example, this statement:

The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.

...is false....

Let's restate the sentence without the puffery.

"We should reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to reduce global warming."

This sentence is better, as the elements which may be questioned are the "Should" and the cause/effect relation in the "reduce", as well as the existence/continued existence of  "global warming."