Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland

[Bind]

“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.  Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

Let's see how this mistake could have happened.

Who owns the map maker ?

In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out.

Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background.

Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with...

All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps.

[1714192985]

1714192985

[1714192985]

1714192985

[1714192985]

1714192985

[1714192985]

1714192985

[FlipPro]

“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.  Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

Let's see how this mistake could have happened.

Who owns the map maker ?

In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out.

Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background.

Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with...

All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps.

Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers...

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

[FlipPro]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

No, that is what you are doing...

[bb113]

So while clouds remain a significant uncertainty and more research is needed on this subject, the evidence is building that clouds will probably cause the planet to warm even further, and are very unlikely to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.  It's also important to remember that there many other feedbacks besides clouds, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is positive and will amplify global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

[RandyFolds]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

[Bind]

Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers...

By that, could you mean the same groups who now claim global warming, who were the same groups who claimed global COOLING in the early 1970's ??

By that, could you mean the thousands of scientists who disagree that global warming is caused my man ??

My question is, if its a man-made reality, which it isnt, then why is all the documented fraud and fakery needed ??

Maybe its just another insidious agenda to steal your wealth, freedom, and liberty ??

Nah, the elite of the world certainly wouldnt be doing anything as nefarious as lying to get what they want, now would they ??

You know, those age old royal bloodline families who historically ruled with an iron fist over everyone, who grew up being taught the supreme right to rule over all the little slaves, and have them grind their fingers to the bone scratching out an existance, most of which is taxed or stolen so the pharohs, kings, and leaders could get rich off the backs of the peasants.

Nah, couldnt be. Our business and world leaders are nice and honest and altruistic and philanthropic and benevolent and not at all concerned with raping you and taking you for everything you are worth.

[FlipPro]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the start of the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .



This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.

That's what it gets down to for me..

[Bind]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .



This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.

That's what it gets down to for me..

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

[dree12]

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

[FlipPro]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .



This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.

That's what it gets down to for me..

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

So you really think (based on carbon dating, and past charts) that we are headed for a cooling period?

Is this what you people really believe? That we are in a "natural" cycle, and that all of the stuff that we have been building on this planet for 200+ years, that emit tons of green house gasses (not just CO2), are not the major contributing factor to this rapid warming we have been seeing?

Why bring Al Gore into this debate? Who mentioned him?

Lets keep it simple...

[Bind]

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

You should care because its raping you at every turn and stealing your wealth, freedom, and liberty by those with an insidious agenda.

[FlipPro]

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

Idiots always believe what they are told without understanding it.

I understand global warming pretty well.

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the industrial revolution.

I understand that CO2 emissions and Temperatures are correlating with each other .

No it certainly isnt rocket science, but what you dont seem to understand (and what Al Gore never told you) is that those CO2 level increases you read as some kind of bible come chronologically AFTER the temperature increases ... historically.

Go look THAT up, son.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

You should care because its raping you at every turn and stealing your wealth, freedom, and liberty by those with an insidious agenda.

You are analyzing this from a conspiracy theorist standpoint.

You don't study science with a preconspired agenda.

That's not the best practice..

[bb113]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

[FlipPro]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

[bb113]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

Right, this will happen one way or the other. The question is whether the timing should be decided by regulatory bodies or markets.

[dree12]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The title of this thread and the OP imply that the melting of ice was faked. This is not a reason to dispute the warming of the Earth, and that is the extent I dispute on this issue.

[bb113]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The title of this thread and the OP imply that the melting of ice was faked. This is not a reason to dispute the warming of the Earth, and that is the extent I dispute on this issue.

The melting of the ice was exaggerated in those maps. This particular evidence of a coming cataclysm was "fake". I think this is clear from both the OP and article.

[FlipPro]

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

Right, this will happen one way or the other. The question is whether the timing should be decided by regulatory bodies or markets.

Markets will never decide to go with green energy.

There is simply way to much money and influence in big oil for there to be any considerable progress in the alternative fuels arena. These people have been documented to block patents, buyout alternative fuel innovations from small-time inventors, and there have even been reports of certain green energy inventors "disappearing" after telling close ones that they had finished a radically new invention.

And unfortunately it is up to them to build the infrastructure/research to support alternative fuels.

What you are seeing now by the US government is simply the manifestation of the desire to go green by the American people. We have seen more progress in the last 3 years than during the entire Bush presidency in that arena, and it's not NEARLY enough IMHO..

We need to be "pushed" over the edge as humans, so that we can hopefully transcend to a cleaner, and more efficient society.

[bb113]

So you really think (based on carbon dating, and past charts) that we are headed for a cooling period?

Is this what you people really believe? That we are in a "natural" cycle, and that all of the stuff that we have been building on this planet for 200+ years, that emit tons of green house gasses (not just CO2), are not the major contributing factor to this rapid warming we have been seeing?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

From the charts it certainly looks like we are due for a cooling period. What other greenhouse gases besides CO2 are we emitting "tons" of? And yes, I think it is unproven that the CO2 is a major contributing factor, and even more unproven that there is not a cut-off after which the effect of CO2 drops off. That doesn't mean I think it isn't a good theory.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

Right, this will happen one way or the other. The question is whether the timing should be decided by regulatory bodies or markets.

Markets will never decide to go with green energy.

What if we run out of fossil fuels. How will the markets respond?

[bb113]

Flipro:

There is simply way to much money and influence in big oil for there to be any considerable progress in the alternative fuels arena. These people have been documented to block patents, buyout alternative fuel innovations from small-time inventors, and there have even been reports of certain green energy inventors "disappearing" after telling close ones that they had finished a radically new invention.

Flipro:

You are analyzing this from a conspiracy theorist standpoint.

[FlipPro]

Flipro:

There is simply way to much money and influence in big oil for there to be any considerable progress in the alternative fuels arena. These people have been documented to block patents, buyout alternative fuel innovations from small-time inventors, and there have even been reports of certain green energy inventors "disappearing" after telling close ones that they had finished a radically new invention.

Flipro:

You are analyzing this from a conspiracy theorist standpoint.

I am stating facts, big oil does NOT want to go green.

They have hundreds of billions of dollars in reserves.

They could have invented the perfect hydrogen/water powered car by now.

Think about what you are saying, and understand it does not make any sense.

The "free market" which you cite in this scenario is OPEC (the people who own the oil and infrastructure) on one end, and on the other end we have the average consumer (who for the most part) doesn't really have a choice in the matter, and would rather not walk...

[FlipPro]

Posts up there ^^^

1. The cycles you are referencing to in that chart happened over hundreds of thousands of years.
We are seeing extreme climate change over the course of just 1 century...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

3. It will be a very long time before fossil fuels run out.

[dree12]

So you really think (based on carbon dating, and past charts) that we are headed for a cooling period?

Is this what you people really believe? That we are in a "natural" cycle, and that all of the stuff that we have been building on this planet for 200+ years, that emit tons of green house gasses (not just CO2), are not the major contributing factor to this rapid warming we have been seeing?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

From the charts it certainly looks like we are due for a cooling period. What other greenhouse gases besides CO2 are we emitting "tons" of?

Methane.

I honestly don't care whether or not CO₂ is the cause (in fact, I think others are more important), but ones who deny that the Earth is warming are denying that P != not P.

There is plenty of evidence the earth has warmed the last 100 years, I don't think anyone contests that. What is the cause, what does it mean for humanity, and could we do anything about it if we wanted to? Those are the issues.

Whether it is CO2 or not partially answers the last question.

The future is simple.

A clean renewable energy future that does not rely on archaic & dirty fuels to propel us forward.

Anyone trying to sell you anything less than that has a hidden agenda...

Right, this will happen one way or the other. The question is whether the timing should be decided by regulatory bodies or markets.

Markets will never decide to go with green energy.

What if we run out of fossil fuels. How will the markets respond?

They will switch. This doesn't mean a regulated market won't make them switch faster.

[bb113]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Ah I just calculated it from here. About 300 million tons of methane per year. Still, do we agree CO2 is the main issue and that it's effect is supposed to be indirectly increasing water vapor content?

[FlipPro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Ah I just calculated it from here. About 300 million tons of methane per year. Still, do we agree CO2 is the main issue and that it's effect is supposed to be indirectly increasing water vapor content?

Hell there are tons of things that are contributing to warming...

General population growth is one of them...

Our goal as humans shouldn't be "how can be find out what EXACTLY is the source of this warming", and actually start agreeing on solutions to reduce our footprint in this planet in ANY WAY WE CAN...

We have an effect on this planet, and ignoring it for any longer is simply not an option...

The solution that is implied on this forum and is regurgitated day after day is "let the free market handle it".

The free market didn't handle ,

Slavery
Child Labor
Voter Discrimination
Gender Discrimination
Pollution Standards
and a list of millions of things that were NOT HANDLED BY THE FREE MARKET.

You know why?

Because it wasn't beneficial for the free market to do these things at the time.

Do you now see why the analysis of "letting the free market" handle green energy innovation is a ludicrous one?

I know this comes as a SHOCK to anyone in this forum (since it's closer here to a conspiracy community than an investment community) but the government is run BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. It's just that it's up to the people to take ownership, vote for people who represent the same common interest, and hold them accountable when the next election comes around...

[bb113]

And the point is that renewable sources are better than fossil fuels for a number of reasons, global warming notwithstanding. People will be motivated to develop them either way, at some point the renewable technologies will be cheaper than fossil fuels.

And by the way I agree with the Oil Company conspiracy, but I don't pretend to call it any more factual than the "regulated our way towards a one-world government" conspiracy. Both seem reasonable to me.

[bb113]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Ah I just calculated it from here. About 300 million tons of methane per year. Still, do we agree CO2 is the main issue and that it's effect is supposed to be indirectly increasing water vapor content?

Hell there are tons of things that are contributing to warming...

General population growth is one of them...

Our goal as humans shouldn't be "how can be find out what EXACTLY is the source of this warming", and actually start agreeing on solutions to reduce our footprint in this planet in ANY WAY WE CAN...

Why?

[dree12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Ah I just calculated it from here. About 300 million tons of methane per year. Still, do we agree CO2 is the main issue and that it's effect is supposed to be indirectly increasing water vapor content?

Hell there are tons of things that are contributing to warming...

General population growth is one of them...

Our goal as humans shouldn't be "how can be find out what EXACTLY is the source of this warming", and actually start agreeing on solutions to reduce our footprint in this planet in ANY WAY WE CAN...

Why?

Hypothetically, you are in an enclosed room with a substance which is producing fumes which may or may not be poisonous. Do you leave the room, or closely examine the substance?

[FlipPro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Ah I just calculated it from here. About 300 million tons of methane per year. Still, do we agree CO2 is the main issue and that it's effect is supposed to be indirectly increasing water vapor content?

Hell there are tons of things that are contributing to warming...

General population growth is one of them...

Our goal as humans shouldn't be "how can be find out what EXACTLY is the source of this warming", and actually start agreeing on solutions to reduce our footprint in this planet in ANY WAY WE CAN...

Why?

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...

[ZodiacDragon84]

so those Islands recently sinking all over world that have been around since before the industrial revolution is just BS made up by the media?

EDIT: Link
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097119,00.html

[Bind]

Absolutely I am viewing this on a conspiracy basis. I study history. Go take a look at the history of the people and entities promoting those agendas.

I am probably a bit older than most of you. Here is what I remember.

In 1972 (at least I think it was 1972), UN and globalist backed interests had "scientists" warn the earth was cooling at an excellerated rate, and if we didnt do something fast we were in imminent danger of extinction.

next, it was the rain forrests being destroyed, not making enough oxygen ... yea more human extinction danger claims.

next, it was the ozone layer depletion because of cfc's from spray aerosol cans and freon, threatening again the extinction of the human race.

next, it was the depletion of the rain forests, but instead of the oxygen scarcity, it was their lack of using up and converting Co2, causing excessive Co2. This was the first hint of a Co2 issue. Of course, the human race was threatened.

next, it was global warming made by man, cars, factories, burning fossil fuels, causing massive excesses Co2 that was threatening extinction of the human race.

Next, its biodiversity ... Then it will be our nature is in danger so we will need to have smart growth zones of stacked and packed people, the loss of personal property to save nature, so the animal and plants can thrive, else there is an imminent threat of our extinction.

Then it will be nature as the new God. Nature will be more important that man because we cant survive without it. the same extinction threat scenarios.

What my post meant is that man-made Co2 is not causing the earth to heat up as are the claims.

I do not believe we are in any cycles. The earth is constantly changing. Ups and down in temp and co2 going along with it, but co2 lags temp, so co2 could not possibly be causing global warming. I do not believe man is casuing any warming of the earth or cooling of the earth.

The earth is what it is and will do what it wants to do with or without mans help. Same with the sun and its affects on the earth. Man wont change anything about either. If tens of thousands of nuclear bomb tests didnt kill the earth, using a light bulb, driving a car, smoking a cig, running a coal stove, running a pig farm, and farting wont either.

There is no threat of extinction, and there never was, until the sun goes nova and burns us up in a few billion years. The rest is simply a mechanism to control you through worry and fear, and steal your wealth, freedom, and liberty.

Its called thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. They have an agenda, create a problem/tragedy or overblow a problem/tragedy, which they have a ready-made solution to, scare the fuck out of you, then hand you the solution advancing their agenda. The psychology of which has only been around and used for thousands of years.

As to the big corps not wanting to promote green energy, who do you think gets all the EPA waivers ?

Thats right...the big corps .. those in the know and working with the insidious influences. You know, like General Electric, who pays no taxes either.

Who pays the extra money??

Thats right... we do.

Corps could care less even if some dont get any waivers. They pass the costs on to the consumer, so the market argument is irrelevent.

Everything else is an externality, again paid for by us.

It's all about taking as much from you as possible.

Their best weapon is the ideological indoctrination that makes us fight amongst each other. This divides and conquers us so they dont have to. The just-in-case scenario. Many of you have that. We should listen to them even on the small chance they may be right. After all its the human race that could be at stake! Rubbish.

[bb113]

Posts up there ^^^

1. The cycles you are referencing to in that chart happened over hundreds of thousands of years.
We are seeing extreme climate change over the course of just 1 century...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

3. It will be a very long time before fossil fuels run out.

What is your definition of extreme? Also most estimates I've seen regarding fossil fuels running out say it will start happening in the next 100 years.

Hell there are tons of things that are contributing to warming...

General population growth is one of them...

Our goal as humans shouldn't be "how can be find out what EXACTLY is the source of this warming", and actually start agreeing on solutions to reduce our footprint in this planet in ANY WAY WE CAN...

Why?

Hypothetically, you are in an enclosed room with a substance which is producing fumes which may or may not be poisonous. Do you leave the room, or closely examine the substance?

I think a better one (because it captures the degree of uncertainty better) is:
Someone tells you there is a substance producing fumes which may or may not be poisonous in the room you are in RIGHT NOW! Are you going to leave the room or ask questions?

I bet it depends on who is telling you, and what their evidence is.

[ZodiacDragon84]

time to put on our tinfoil hats gentlemen

[bb113]

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

I tried to lead the discussion towards the actual uncertainties involved in understanding global warming, and you keep trying to turn the discussion towards some vague catastrophic endgame

[dree12]

*conspiracy theory*

I live on this planet, nearer to the poles than you likely are. Here, the so-called "arctic amplification" has drastically changed my climate the past few decades. I don't need a study or government to tell me this.

Posts up there ^^^

Hell there are tons of things that are contributing to warming...

General population growth is one of them...

Our goal as humans shouldn't be "how can be find out what EXACTLY is the source of this warming", and actually start agreeing on solutions to reduce our footprint in this planet in ANY WAY WE CAN...

I think a better one (because it captures the degree of uncertainty better) is:
Someone tells you there is a substance producing fumes which may or may not be poisonous in the room you are in RIGHT NOW! Are you going to leave the room or ask questions?

I bet it depends on who is telling you, and what their evidence is.

Please don't misattribute quotes to me. About the substance, what if you can smell the fumes? Governments aren't necessary to tell you the Earth is warming - there is plenty of evidence for that.

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

I tried to lead the discussion towards the actual uncertainties involved in understanding global warming, and you keep trying to turn the discussion towards some vague catastrophic endgame

I don't disagree with uncertainty, but this still isn't an issue we should delay.

[ZodiacDragon84]

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...
[/quote]

So we can screw them up too? Why are we so interested in interstellar colonization? Cant be so we can rape the resources there too?

[FlipPro]

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

I tried to lead the discussion towards the actual uncertainties involved in understanding global warming, and you keep trying to turn the discussion towards some vague catastrophic endgame

It's not an endgame for the planet.

Definitely an endgame for modern day humans...

The bigger our population grows and the more third world countries begin to develop, the faster the world will warm.

It's all relative, and the only way we can survive on this planet is to literally co-exist...

[FlipPro]

So we can screw them up too? Why are we so interested in interstellar colonization? Cant be so we can rape the resources there too?

OPEC wants to start deep space exploration :p.

[bb113]

Please don't misattribute quotes to me. About the substance, what if you can smell the fumes? Governments aren't necessary to tell you the Earth is warming - there is plenty of evidence for that.

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

I tried to lead the discussion towards the actual uncertainties involved in understanding global warming, and you keep trying to turn the discussion towards some vague catastrophic endgame

I don't disagree with uncertainty, but this still isn't an issue we should delay.

Ah sorry about the quote, it got messed up. And once again I think everyone agrees the earth has been warming. If you think something must be done about it whether or not it is due to man-made causes, ok. I would counter that perhaps adapting would be easier than developing climate control technology.

[bb113]

Because we haven't found any planets nearby that can harbor our pathetic species...

Global warming deniers always try to deny the truth by using ambiguous words.

I tried to lead the discussion towards the actual uncertainties involved in understanding global warming, and you keep trying to turn the discussion towards some vague catastrophic endgame

It's not an endgame for the planet.

Definitely an endgame for modern day humans...

The bigger our population grows and the more third world countries begin to develop, the faster the world will warm.

It's all relative, and the only way we can survive on this planet is to literally co-exist...

Once again... you are jumping to conclusions and talking about vague endgames rather than discussing the actual issue.

[bb113]

What my post meant is that man-made Co2 is not causing the earth to heat up as are the claims.

I do not believe we are in any cycles. The earth is constantly changing. Ups and down in temp and co2 going along with it, but co2 lags temp, so co2 could not possibly be causing global warming. I do not believe man is casuing any warming of the earth or cooling of the earth.

There is no historical evidence of CO2 causing global warming, but that doesn't mean pumping a bunch in the air couldn't cause it...

I agree that there is alot of evidence that climate change is being used as a political tool.

[RandyFolds]

Posts up there ^^^

1. The cycles you are referencing to in that chart happened over hundreds of thousands of years.
We are seeing extreme climate change over the course of just 1 century...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

3. It will be a very long time before fossil fuels run out.

1. The resolution of sampling climate data for the previous million years is far from accurate. No one knows if this is precedent. Period. We aren't seeing extreme climate changes, as there is absolutely no basis for comparison, nor a sample period long enough to matter. This is like basing your hashrate on one second of submitting shares, to bring it all full circle.

2. See, this is all speculation until it plays out...

3. No one knows. Period.

Those charts someone posted correspond roughly to the milankovich cycles. Roughly...no one has ever been able to link more than a rough similarity, and for their accuracy in predicting ice ages, they are damn near worthless.

You guys need to learn that correlation is not causation, particularly on a geologic time scale. There is no precedent for this, and everyone who thinks they know what they are talking about has only been working on it twenty years...

so those Islands recently sinking all over world that have been around since before the industrial revolution is just BS made up by the media?

EDIT: Link
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097119,00.html

So I suppose the last 200 years is responsible for the 'sinking' of those thousands upon thousands of islands in the past 10,000 years. Sensationalist journalism. You have probably never lived in the tropics, when a single storm can eat away 500 meters of land and plop it somewhere else, nor do you seem to know much about oceanography or climatology. Shit be changin' all the time, homie. No one's been watching long enough to know a damned thing.

Dree12: Where is all this evidence you speak of? All sorts of things happen on this planet which affect the weather. Have you ever heard of a drought? Are those some modern invention of the industrial revolution...

Your lifetime? Pahahahahaha....you obviously aren't a geologist.

[ZodiacDragon84]

Not precisely what I meant Randy. Extra water melt from the caps cant be helping them boss

[bb113]

so those Islands recently sinking all over world that have been around since before the industrial revolution is just BS made up by the media?

EDIT: Link
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097119,00.html

Actually it is the media and forum posters, this island has not "recently sunk":

But another threat has the government concerned: just barely above sea level, the islands risk going under rather sooner than later, as ocean water levels rise from the effects of global warming.

What does "rather sooner than later" mean, and it is normal for the earth to warm and sea levels to change:


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

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

[RandyFolds]

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

Bam. This times a million.

[dree12]

Dree12: Where is all this evidence you speak of? All sorts of things happen on this planet which affect the weather. Have you ever heard of a drought? Are those some modern invention of the industrial revolution...

Your lifetime? Pahahahahaha....you obviously aren't a geologist.

Correlation is not causation. This doesn't mean that correlation doesn't exist.

Randy, do you live near the tropics? Closer to the poles, the warming is accellerating; it's quite scary, really. Anyone disputing it would be immediately called a dissenter and denialist here. I'm not a geologist, but geologists aren't useful here. I don't care whether warming is normal or not, it's still warming and it's still dangerous.

Not precisely what I meant Randy. Extra water melt from the caps cant be helping them boss

In fact, sea level rise is partly offset by sea ice melt in the arctic and antarctic, so I'm not really concerned about this.

[bb113]

Dree12: Where is all this evidence you speak of? All sorts of things happen on this planet which affect the weather. Have you ever heard of a drought? Are those some modern invention of the industrial revolution...

Your lifetime? Pahahahahaha....you obviously aren't a geologist.

I don't care whether warming is normal or not, it's still warming and it's still dangerous.

I would counter that perhaps adapting would be easier than developing climate control technology.

[Dutch Merganser]

The human animal tries to separate itself from nature, and it is only in the context of this separation does the concept of something being "man made" even exist.

It's all natural, including the man-made part, and including the natural selection part. Humans will inevitably bump up against natural limitations they will not surmount just as obliviously as do other species. A sterilized planet is just a clean slate from an evolutionary perspective, it wouldn't last forever if it did occur.

That's the silver lining. When it comes to the earth, we may as well poke it before it's cold and see how that works out, no?

[FlipPro]

This is a Republican forum to say the least.

[dree12]

This is a Republican forum to say the least.

I'm a republican (well, republican counterpart in my country), but still very democrat from most other user's perspectives. So, yeah, this is a Republican forum.

[jago25_98]

+1 - easier to adapt than get the whole world to change.

While they spout controls they benefot and use that cash to buy stuff in safe areas

Re the charts - zoom out a few thousand years.

But i agree co2 should be curbed too, since i like efficiency anyway

[bb113]

Here is a long term map of CO2 and temperature:



Compare this to short term:


To really understand these we need to know

1) How "Global Temperature Anomaly" is calculated
2) How "Temperature Difference" is calculated
3) How Temperature and CO2 levels were measured or estimated. Where were the measurements/samples taken from, etc.
4) If the measurements were "corrected" or "calibrated" in any way. If so, how?
5) Why neither of these charts have any error bars. Where is the ERROR?

The caption for the upper figure provides us with some of this info:

This figure shows the temperature record from the Vostok ice core (dark blue), together with CO2 (red) from the Vostok ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The near vertical line on the right represents the change in CO2 associated with the industrial revolution.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

Even so, more self-research is necessary to understand the workflow that resulted in each of these graphs. My point is that graphs can be made to show whatever the graphmaker wants. Was the lower chart posted by flipro designed to inform or to scare? Is the upper chart designed to inform viewers about the CO2-Temp relationship, or hide the importance of more recent data by using huge scales?

If you think you understand global warming and have not done this minimum amount of self-research, you are wrong. You do not really understand and can be manipulated with anecdotes and images. I am no expert in climatology, and do not have the answers to the above questions right now. My goal with this post is to contrast accepting "expert", forum poster, and journalist interpretations vs. an example of a rational approach.

[Schleicher]

Videos you might want to see:
http://youtu.be/7lzYj7bCf7M
http://youtu.be/mF_anaVcCXg

[bb113]

Eh, I'm more interested in discussing the science. That the field has been politicized is obvious.

[Schleicher]

Eh, I'm more interested in discussing the science. That the field has been politicized is obvious.

Yeah, that's right.
My post was not a reply to you, but to some other people here.

[Schleicher]

Are we past peak oil or not?

According to BP the proved oil reserves will last about 46 years.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037157&contentId=7068604

[Matthew N. Wright]

Guys, global warming is true, but it has nothing to do with us. It's a natural occurrence on earth and we will all either freeze to death or burn to death if we survive long enough.

[dirtycat]

Guys, global warming is true, but it has nothing to do with us. It's a natural occurrence on earth and we will all either freeze to death or burn to death if we survive long enough.

+1 but its not called global warming its called nature.

[bb113]

I'm not convinced we aren't doing it personally.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I'm not convinced we aren't doing it personally.

I hear you. I'm not convinced we are.

[P4man]

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

Why do you put experts between quotation marks?
And why is it somehow smart to blindly disbelieve what is the overwhelming consensus among the worlds best scientists and instead do your own cherry picking "research"?  Do you consider yourself such a wold authority on climate science that you know better than all the worlds scientists combined, that you think you can do a better syntheses of all the available science than the IPCC  ? I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

[bb113]

Because I do research, I know how it goes.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

Hey now, rocket science is a tad bit different. Furthermore, that's comparing potential which can't really be measured easily. Someone could theoretically do better than NASA in their own garage given a number of influences. Nasa is just a big garage in that sense. Global warming however can only be understood with a large enough data set. No one says it isn't happening that I know of, they're just saying the current data set isn't enough. It'd be like judging bitcoin on this month's price fluctuations alone.

[bb113]

Also I am not doing my own "cherry picking", most of what I posted came from a website explaining AGW and responding to critics. Honestly I just accepted the consensus until I bothered to look into it a couple days ago. I suggest you do the same.

Watch this video to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY

It is Richard Lindzen (who is basically the most, if not only, respected climatologist who is publicly skeptical of AGW) and another climatologist who believes it is happening. They go through critiquing NASA animations and agree on most points, it is not like these forum arguments at all. It is an hour long, but well worth your time. This is a big issue.

Guests:

Hadi Dowlatabadi is Canada research chair and professor in Applied Mathematics and Global Change at the University of British Columbia.

Richard Lindzen is a professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[P4man]

Also I am not doing my own "cherry picking"
...
It is Richard Lindzen (who is basically the most, if not only, respected climatologist who is publicly skeptical of AGW)

How is that somehow not cherry picking?

Since you do science yourself, you know how science works. It would break down if no scientists would oppose a consensus view and try to argue against it.  Thats entirely healthy, and so you will not hear me smear Lindzen for that. The point is he is one man casting vague doubts on the science, many of his arguments have been thoroughly refuted (which has admitted to):
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Lindzen.27s_Discarded_Global_Warming_Arguments

The guy is a contrarian. Even if a smart one, he will try to argue anything. Thats good for science, but its not good to just dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence and take his word instead. FWIW, he also hardly believes in the link between lung cancer and smoking. Believe him on climate change at your own peril.

[bb113]

You missed my entire point. Do not trust any argument from authority 100%, ever. I don't think I know more than climate scientists about climate, but I know that they cannot know something like this is true with 100% confidence. I am very put off by the way it is played in the media. The data simply isn't there.

That said, I will follow that link. My mind isn't made up at all, like I said I have only been interested in this for a couple days now. Even when I do make it up, if you are going to trust an authority, don't pick me.


Also just because I posted one video it is cherry picking.... That is not the source of all my info. The main one so far is this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[P4man]

You missed my entire point. Do not trust any argument from authority 100%, ever.

What does that even mean? If scientists predict with 99% certainty that a meteorite is going to hit your town, do you evacuate? Or do you listen to the one guy who says its all bullocks and the measurements are probably off, thats its a government ploy for whatever conspiracy?
I dont know about you, but Id pack my bags if they predict a 10% probability. Would you wait for 100% certainty? Ie, after it hit?

Scientists are almost never 100% sure of anything. Climate science is no exception. You wont find any respectable scientist claiming they are 100% sure. IIRC, the IPCC put the number at 99% or 99.5% certainty that our fossil fuel burning is causing climate change. So how does that relate to the above statement, that you think its more like 50%? Or 5%? Or that 0.5%=50% ? Or that we should just bet the planet on their estimated 0.5% chance they got it wrong? Wouldnt even a 50% chance be enough to take measures?

FWIW, your hero Lindzen will only bet 1-50 odds that he is right and the planet will be cooler in 20 years. That makes him more skeptical than the IPCC, but not by much!

Also just because I posted one video it is cherry picking.... That is not the source of all my info. The main one so far is this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

That domain alone shows its cherry picking. Its a site that looks for evidence to support a (political?) point. Thats not how science works. ITs not how the IPCC works. What IPCC does is review *all* relevant scientific research, whether its from Lindzen or anyone else, and try to condense that in to a readable consensus view. That is not cherry picking, its quite the opposite. You can not put that against a site like the above and somehow claim they are equal.  You might as well contrast some religious nut's book on "creationism" and contrast it with 100 years of science and conclude we really do not know if evolution is real.

[Bind]

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

The global warming agenda (and pretty much all agendas) uses potential like the ordinance and statute law system uses it to make you guilty of causing harm or loss when in reality you havent.

On one hand there is the potential for harm and loss, which in reality is absolutely no harm or loss at all.

On the other hand there is real provable verifiable harm and loss.

Polar opposites that just sound dangerously similar.

Its exactly like an interloper with an agenda whispering in our ears, planting seeds in our minds to flourish and grow, to separate and divide and conquer us, making us debate and argue amongst ourselves, to split up a marriage or a relationship between best friends, mostly so we dont concentrate our efforts on the interloper.

... and it works extremely well until people research the history of the groups and people and families of the people behind it all.

its time we come together against the interlopers.

They are stealing our wealth, freedom, liberty, and sovereignty because of this potential.

[Matthew N. Wright]

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

Potential encompasses reality.

[Bind]

Potential encompasses reality.

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

[Matthew N. Wright]

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

po·ten·tial   [puh-ten-shuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Sounds like reality to me.

[Bind]

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

po·ten·tial   [puh-ten-shuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Sounds like reality to me.

you are selectively reading, Matthew.

you ignored, "as opposed to actual".

I have the potential to break your face.

The point is... until it happens, its fantasy... not reality.

[Matthew N. Wright]

No. Potential has the "possibility" to encompass reality.

po·ten·tial   [puh-ten-shuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

Sounds like reality to me.

you are selectively reading, Matthew.

you ignored, "as opposed to actual".

I have the potential to break your face.

The point is... until it happens, its fantasy... not reality.

You're probably right. I was selectively reading only the first line of text you posted which was:

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

I must have gotten it out of context.

[Bind]

and i stand by that statement.

IF it becomes reality, it is no longer potential.

Until it becomes reality, its potential... fantasy...  non-existent.

We are often guilty of the non-existent _INSERT_POTENTIAL_HERE_.

[P4man]

The difference between potential and reality is that they are 100% polar opposites.

The global warming agenda (and pretty much all agendas) uses potential like the ordinance and statute law system uses it to make you guilty of causing harm or loss when in reality you havent.

There are two separate issues here; on one hand, there is the public and media "debate" on whether or not the science behind AGW is sound. The simple answer is: it is. The scientific community is about as certain on this than they are on anything, so lets stop debating on conspiracy theories and quoting a handful members of the flat earth society and face the scientific facts . The comet is heading to your house,  or at least it is with 99% certainty.

The other debate is what, if anything,  to do about it. Thats a hugely complex debate that involves among others politics, economics and morals. Ill not pretend I, or anyone for that matter, has a conclusive answer to that. Its an important debate, so we must do it, but for the love of God, leave it to scientists to discuss the science and do not pervert it with political ideas just because its conclusions clash with your politics.  Doing so is as asinine as dismissing the science because of religious believes.  Some people still say the earth is flat and men walked with dinosaurs. Dont be as foolish when it comes to something as important as the future of our planet.

[bb113]

You missed my entire point. Do not trust any argument from authority 100%, ever.

What does that even mean? If scientists predict with 99% certainty that a meteorite is going to hit your town, do you evacuate? Or do you listen to the one guy who says its all bullocks and the measurements are probably off, thats its a government ploy for whatever conspiracy?
I dont know about you, but Id pack my bags if they predict a 10% probability. Would you wait for 100% certainty? Ie, after it hit?

Scientists are almost never 100% sure of anything. Climate science is no exception. You wont find any respectable scientist claiming they are 100% sure. IIRC, the IPCC put the number at 99% or 99.5% certainty that our fossil fuel burning is causing climate change. So how does that relate to the above statement, that you think its more like 50%? Or 5%? Or that 0.5%=50% ? Or that we should just bet the planet on their estimated 0.5% chance they got it wrong? Wouldnt even a 50% chance be enough to take measures?

FWIW, your hero Lindzen will only bet 1-50 odds that he is right and the planet will be cooler in 20 years. That makes him more skeptical than the IPCC, but not by much!

Also just because I posted one video it is cherry picking.... That is not the source of all my info. The main one so far is this site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

That domain alone shows its cherry picking. Its a site that looks for evidence to support a (political?) point. Thats not how science works. ITs not how the IPCC works. What IPCC does is review *all* relevant scientific research, whether its from Lindzen or anyone else, and try to condense that in to a readable consensus view. That is not cherry picking, its quite the opposite. You can not put that against a site like the above and somehow claim they are equal.  You might as well contrast some religious nut's book on "creationism" and contrast it with 100 years of science and conclude we really do not know if evolution is real.

I think the philosophy of science stuff is getting slightly off topic. In summary, you are correct no respectable scientist would claim they are 100% sure of something. Your constant appeals to authority are once again missing my point. I am not denying we are causing global warming. I am saying that many people who "believe" in it actually haven't put much thought into the actual evidence at all. Just go back to my original post and address the points I raise. I describe very clearly why I have doubts right now.

I don't think you followed the link to skepticalscience... stop assuming I am an idiot who doesn't understand how to use multiple sources. Also I have been reading through the most recent IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

Please find in there where they provide evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic global warming. That is what I have been searching for.

[P4man]

I think the philosophy of science stuff is getting slightly off topic. In summary, you are correct no respectable scientist would claim they are 100% sure of something. Your constant appeals to authority are once again missing my point.

Well.. doh, in some case appealing to authority kinda makes sense, doesnt it? Particularly when the authority is not just a scientist or group of scientists, but a worldwide effort by the entire scientific community to formulate a consensus. IOW, something they can ALL agree on. There are lots of issues, projections and theories related to AGW where there is no such consensus, there lots of the questions to be answered,  but what is in the IPCC reports is something  every (or every minus one) world renowned expert in the field agrees on; who the f* then are you (not personally, but anyone questioning the science) to disagree with that, seriously?

I might chuckle a bit if some forum poster here argues against Dawkings theories on gravitational singularities and thinks he know better, but arguing against the authority that the IPCC represents is simply way way beyond that. There hasnt been a scientific publication with that kind of authority ever in the history of science. If you think Im exaggerating, name one.

I am not denying we are causing global warming. I am saying that many people who "believe" in it actually haven't put much thought into the actual evidence at all.

Good, as there is no reason for them, unless they are experts in the field or just curious.

Just go back to my original post and address the points I raise. I describe very clearly why I have doubts right now.

You mean the cloud stuff? Honestly, you think you stumbled across something the IPCC has not looked at? You think its likely you will stumble upon ANY issue related to AGW that has not been studied in depth by people far more qualified than you, and that their science is not taken in to account by the IPCC? You do understand how the IPCC works, right? If not, I suggest you start reading up on that first before wasting too much time.

Anyway, if I understand correctly you are paraphrasing a theory by Lindzen. A theory Lindzen himself apparently no longer stands by. As per my previous link:

An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[10].

...

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."[12]

I don't think you followed the link to skepticalscience... s

I did not, and dont intend to, unless you can demonstrate the science on it is vetted by a peer review process thats at least marginally as thorough as the IPCC's.

Please find in there where they provide evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic global warming. That is what I have been searching for.

Define catastrophic.

[RandyFolds]

There are two separate issues here; on one hand, there is the public and media "debate" on whether or not the science behind AGW is sound. The simple answer is: it is.

The scientific community is about as certain on this than they are on anything, so lets stop debating on conspiracy theories and quoting a handful members of the flat earth society and face the scientific facts . The comet is heading to your house,  or at least it is with 99% certainty.

You are mistaken. The simple answer is: no one knows.

I seem to recall points in history when the scientific community was certain that burning women would solve all their troubles. Now going along with group hysteria is solid science?

The russians are going to blow up the moon!

[P4man]

You are mistaken. The simple answer is: no one knows.

No one knows 100% for sure. No one knows anything 100% for sure. Ever.  Maybe we live in the Matrix?
So if you jump out of a plane, you may not fall to your death. No one knows. Maybe God will catch you. Maybe Newton was wrong.  So why dont you?
Rational humans dont jump out of planes without a parachute because they make decisions based upon the best available science and knowledge. If you jump out of a plane without parachute there is a near certainty you will die. The chances of us changing our climate are about the same. But yeah, "no one knows!".
What a stupid argument.

[RandyFolds]

You are mistaken. The simple answer is: no one knows.

No one knows 100% for sure. No one knows anything 100% for sure. Ever.  Maybe we live in the Matrix?
So if you jump out of a plane, you may not fall to your death. No one knows. Maybe God will catch you. Maybe Newton was wrong.  So why dont you?
Rational humans dont jump out of planes without a parachute because they make decisions based upon the best available science and knowledge. If you jump out of a plane without parachute there is a near certainty you will die. The chances of us changing our climate are about the same. But yeah, "no one knows!".
What a stupid argument.

Alright, descartes...

The sample size is too small to draw inferences about the greater picture. The simple fact is, we don't know a goddamn thing about a goddamn thing. Anyone who blindly believes otherwise is liable to get burnt. Thalidomide babies, anyone?

[P4man]

The sample size is too small "

Another great point; clearly not a single climate scientist ever thought of that or there wouldnt even have been an IPCC report.
Do tell them, Im sure they will revisit the whole idea once they realize their complete folly.

The simple fact is, we don't know a goddamn thing about a goddamn thing.

Some people dont.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[bb113]

P4man, skepticalscience is a PRO-AGW site. Stop assuming everyone is dumber than you. Lindzen is not my hero at all, stop basing your arguments on him. Hero worship is exactly what I have been advising against doing. Watch the video of him debating another climate scientist (who believes in AGW and was a contributor to the IPCC doc). They both agree with me, not with you. You are once again drawing us off track into philosophy of science...and ignoring what everyone else is saying about the quality of the actual evidence. If you know nothing but just accept scientific consensus, then fine. I did that for years and lived happily. However, it is wrong of you to act like you know what you are talking about or look down on people who don't share your view when it is based completely on an appeal to authority.

If you look for the evidence man is causing the warming, all you will find is the correlation between CO2 and temperature. If you look for the evidence the earth will continue to warm until it causes catastrophic effects, all you will find is the correlation between CO2 and temperature, plus a theory of positive feedback that is not based on evidence. It is logical, and makes sense, I agree. I think is a good, plausible theory. The fact is though, there is no real evidence for it yet. At the very least, please read the IPCC report for yourself rather than relying on press releases, etc.

If I am wrong about this please correct me. I will be looking more into it myself to see if I have misunderstood, but any help along the way ("just listen to the experts" is not helpful) would be appreciated.

Also:
Catastrophic= whatever makes flipro think human society will get wiped off the planet.
You meant Hawking not Dawkins
Please stop turning the debate into "which authorities should we trust", I am capable of assessing that for myself.

[bb113]

Also Lindzen is still publishing on cloud data as of last summer, so I am not sure what your quote is referring to. Anyway, focusing on him is a distraction. All climate scientists admit the clouds are an unknown, it is just that there is reason to think any negative feedback effect will be weak. I have not examined this yet so I can't say much more.

[P4man]

Catastrophic= whatever makes flipro think human society will get wiped off the planet.

There is no scientific consensus on that happening or, afaik,  even being possible. I do not claim it, the IPCC doesnt, very few scientists do.
If thats your point, or flipro's, well clearly there is no convincing scientific proof we are about to render the earth in to a Venus like planet, or that there is even such a possibility, so im not going to argue for or against that. I dont think it has been convincingly ruled out either, but thats besides the point.

What there is ample evidence for however, to me is reason enough to consider serious measures regardless of the potential for a truly cataclysmic run away greenhouse effect, and I find the shallow attempts to discredit the extremely thorough science on the matter, particularly by politically or religiously motivated non scientists appalling.

The discussion on whether or not earth may become inhabitable because of our carbon emissions  is not something I want to debate, so if that is the point I missed, carry on.

[Kettenmonster]

I understand that CO2 carbon dioxide has been on the rise since the start of the industrial revolution.

Which holds only true for exactly that period of time, thus pretty irrelevant for any kind of proof.
In fact temperature started rising before industrial revolution came along.
We can´t safely predict the weather for more than 3 days, but climate for the next centuries?
If a reliable extrapolation method existed, it would be used on stock exchanges.
Those climate predictors could earn a fortune, just if it would work.
Look at the math inside the computer climate models. It is pure crystal orb contemplation.

This not rocket science, and any discussion justifying why we should stay on fossil fuels for 1 second longer is idiotic.
That's what it gets down to for me..

1.) It is more than just rocket science. Rockets are meanwhile very well understood while climate is not.
2.) Who wants to stay on fossil oil for what reasons? Plus where is the "connection to rockets"?
Impressive! You just prooved f ^ f => t  
Which is correct plus your conclusion is correct, but for totally another reason.
I hate it when people come along with brilliant ideas, good plans but then spoil it all with wrong arguments.
Because then while the arguments are prooven wrong, people might think the idea is prooven wrong as well.

Fossil oil, coal and gas are better used for reasonable things if used at all, than just being combined with oxygen to achieve some warmth.
That is in fact pretty idiotic plus rather expensive. But the system is established and very well connected people earn a lot of money with it..
That is why this system is so hard to break apart.

Just for some homework figure out the following numbers for your country.
- How much wood in kg is regrown in a forrest per km² = A? (Depends on lots of factors, rather tricky question)
- How many km² of forrest do you have = B. (should be quite easy to google)
- Calculate A x B x 5 and compare this to the gross energy consumption of your country and be amazed.
How comes this magic 5 along? Each kg of wood gives you roughly 5kWh, provided you keep it dry and burn it well.

We end up ...
- with lots of work for unemployed people. Bad thing because unemployment keeps wages low.
- less dependent on fossil energy supply. Bad thing as already mentioned above.
- needing a plan how to crop forrests sustainably. Which is at hand, but where is the politician grasping the term "hundred years".

Wood is only one example for the general concept on how to solve the problem.
In Reykjavik they are heating the roads, guess how surely not with oil or coal. (google hint: perlan icelandic for pearl)

[Hawker]

You are mistaken. The simple answer is: no one knows.

No one knows 100% for sure. No one knows anything 100% for sure. Ever.  Maybe we live in the Matrix?
So if you jump out of a plane, you may not fall to your death. No one knows. Maybe God will catch you. Maybe Newton was wrong.  So why dont you?
Rational humans dont jump out of planes without a parachute because they make decisions based upon the best available science and knowledge. If you jump out of a plane without parachute there is a near certainty you will die. The chances of us changing our climate are about the same. But yeah, "no one knows!".
What a stupid argument.

Its not entirely stupid.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/02/features/trials-and-errors?page=all

Climate is exactly like the cholesterol problem that they are grappling with in that industry and the causation problem is one that is killing all modern science research.  In these complex systems, causation is simply not understood.

[Nachtwind]

Which holds only true for exactly that period of time, thus pretty irrelevant for any kind of proof.

Thats wrong. You can check the data from GRIP, NORTHGRIP and similar projects for at least 100k years.. CO2 has been raising and sinking for a while, but when looking at the Eemian, the previous interglacial one cannot see the high raise of CO2 that we have today. So yes, this raise of CO2 is special - but it is hard to say how much it in fact influences the climate, but there IS a correlation..

In fact temperature started rising before industrial revolution came along.

That is right, but as said above.. its hard to judge if this change we have now is still "natural". Milancovic cycles as well as the Eemian would suggest a warming - yet none that is as rapid as the one we have at the moment. Looking at the fossil records there are only very few examples of such rapid climate changes in the Quaternary, and those were afaik(!) all related to events.

We can´t safely predict the weather for more than 3 days, but climate for the next centuries?

We're not talking about the weather. Here we talk about climate.

If a reliable extrapolation method existed, it would be used on stock exchanges.

The stock exchange is, as stupid as it sounds, much more chaotic than any climate patternsince chaotic factors like human behaviour isnt part of the climate. There are some good models for climate but so far none was possible to 100% model the past - so there is no model that could predict the future. But that is why scientist talk about scenarios and not about predictions. Our crystal balls are as useless as everyone elses.

Look at the math inside the computer climate models. It is pure crystal orb contemplation.

If you look into the climate models you will see a lot that is certainly not crystal orb contemplation. Its just the vast amount of variables that really makes the job hard..

1.) It is more than just rocket science. Rockets are meanwhile very well understood while climate is not.

Rockets are now studied for almost 70 years whilst the climate is still a very young scientific topic. Sure, Milancovic was able to relate certain climatic fluctuations to astronomical influences, but true climatic modelling couldnt be done without the computing power we see today.. Give climate sciences some time.. if it is as old as rocket science much much more stuff will be known...

[P4man]

Climate is exactly like the cholesterol problem

Unlike human body chemistry,  the basic science behind green house effect is so simple a  6 year old can understand it. There is no debate about that.
Modeling that in to accurate simulations with all the interactions is of course, an enormously complex task. Which is why despite all the efforts, most predictions still have relatively large error margins. But turning that in to "we dont know what is cause and effect, so we have no clue" is simply untrue.

We do not understand all the interactions, but to use a Rumsfeld; these are known unknowns, ie, we know what we dont know and can and do account for that. Their impact is modeled as statistical uncertainty. The chances of those unknowns reversing the conclusions made so far is statistically irrelevant. We are heating up the earth and the broad lines of the results of that, are known. We may not be able to predict with certainty if it will be 0.6C or 0.8C in x years, but I fail to see how thats a reason to just pretend there is no evidence.

If you want to draw any parallels with medicine, consider the planet a patient. If despite some statistical uncertainty all specialists in the world state with very high confidence the patient is ill with some specific poisoning and they all universally agree on the most likely cause and cure; do you wait until they agree if the patient has 5 or 7 months to live,  until its determined if his fever will spike to 40C or 41C, if the poisoning will cause rashes on his left or right arm first?  Do you wait until he dies, or do you take action based upon the best available science? Even if the treatment may be uncomfortable, and the cure may not be 100% guaranteed.

BTW, the patient in this analogy, is your son. Because its dubious climate change will impact us terribly,  at least the older ones among us. The effects will be felt mostly by our children and grandchildren. I find it disgusting enough that they will inherit a planet thats mostly devoid of one of nature's most versatile and useful products, namely oil, because we carelessly burned it; burned unspeakable amounts, like some cavemen burning Van Gogh paintings to keep warm.

[kais3r]

how about this summer like winter on the east coast?? this is a form of global warming if u ask ME!

[bb113]

Ok, so we agree that climatologists are not the ones saying the earth may turn into venus so we can stop talking about that. This is a possibility but deemed very unlikely. The usual scenario for lets not say catastrophic, but "bad" for humanity, is a rise of 3-5 K. This is predicted to lead to increased extreme weather, droughts, flooding of populated coastal areas, mass migration, etc. I haven't looked at what the evidence for these predictions are so I won't say any more on that for now.

I would note here that the predicted rise of 3-5K is dependent on positive feedback, not CO2 itself. The way all these feedbacks interact is not simple enough for a 6 year old to understand.

The question then is whether we can do anything about it and whether trying to "do something" is a better option than doing nothing and adapting. If humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is the cause, then there is an obvious way "do something". If it is not, then what we do may be useless and needlessly restrict our ability to adapt to the coming change.

[bb113]

Climate is exactly like the cholesterol problem

If you want to draw any parallels with medicine, consider the planet a patient. If despite some statistical uncertainty all specialists in the world state with very high confidence the patient is ill with some specific poisoning and they all universally agree on the most likely cause and cure; do you wait until they agree if the patient has 5 or 7 months to live,  until its determined if his fever will spike to 40C or 41C, if the poisoning will cause rashes on his left or right arm first?  Do you wait until he dies, or do you take action based upon the best available science? Even if the treatment may be uncomfortable, and the cure may not be 100% guaranteed.

Usually the "cure" to a new disease isn't figured out until many people have already died and trial and error has provided evidence for what works or not. So your analogy doesn't work.

[bb113]

Also I will give an example from my field:

Until around the 1970s, an accepted idea across neuroscience was that the nervous system was essentially fixed throughout adulthood, both in terms of brain functions, as well as the idea that it was impossible for new neurons to develop after birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

For a hundred years it was "the consensus" that the nervous system of adults was fixed. The few neuroscientists saying otherwise were ignored. Now we have multiple drugs in clinical trials meant to increase neuroplasticity, neuroplasticity is thought to underlie the success of rehab (when it is successful), there are iPhone apps meant to "keep the brain sharp" (i.e. plastic).

Similarly it was thought that GABA was always an inhibitory neurotransmitter. This was supported by much evidence (recording neurons firing) and theory (GABA receptors open up to allow Cl- into the cell thus hyperpolarizing it). Then it was discovered that chandelier neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandelier_neurons) release GABA but it is excitatory. How could this be so when it was backed by so much evidence? They synapse directly on the axon hillock where there is an unusual Cl- concentration gradient, so Cl- flows out of the cell rather than in.

Scientific consensus is not useless, but it should not lead you to attach even 90% credibility to an idea on its own. The fact is all these sciences are still young (neuroscience, economics, climatology), thinking we know the whole story is folly.

[FlipPro]

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

Why do you put experts between quotation marks?
And why is it somehow smart to blindly disbelieve what is the overwhelming consensus among the worlds best scientists and instead do your own cherry picking "research"?  Do you consider yourself such a wold authority on climate science that you know better than all the worlds scientists combined, that you think you can do a better syntheses of all the available science than the IPCC  ? I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

+1

[bb113]

I AM NOT saying that sudden changes due to man are not happening. I am saying that blindly accepting what "experts" tell you is bad, accepting what the media says is even worse.

Why do you put experts between quotation marks?
And why is it somehow smart to blindly disbelieve what is the overwhelming consensus among the worlds best scientists and instead do your own cherry picking "research"?  Do you consider yourself such a wold authority on climate science that you know better than all the worlds scientists combined, that you think you can do a better syntheses of all the available science than the IPCC  ? I find that notion as ridiculous as thinking you would be able to build a better space shuttle than NASA in your garage. They are only "experts" after all, what do they know.

+1

You put too much faith in science. No one really knows what they are doing, and humans are fallible and subject to biases. There is an exceptional amount of noise in climate data due to overlapping cycles and black swan events. This REQUIRES subjectivity to interpret, so the field is unusually subject to bias. Add in the obvious political consequences and you should trust the findings even less. Getting funding is not easy, especially in a young field with a few top-scientists that see things the same way and review grants according to their own biases. Ever submit a grant? One person loves it the other hates it, often whether you get funding or not comes down to who you know. It is a very imperfect system (not that I have a better idea).

[Nachtwind]

No one really knows what they are doing, and humans are fallible and subject to biases.

Well.. in paleoclimatics we mostly know what we are doing. It would be a lie to say that we know everything we do, but at least "understanding" the past works. Applying it on todays systems is hard due to the human impact.

There is an exceptional amount of noise in climate data due to overlapping cycles and black swan events.

Oh there is? I dont really know much about that noise. D18O is quite a strong proxy - most of the time correlating to milancovic cycles, not really giving any noise. If you look at CRU and other recent datasets they are also quite good... It becomes noise or very imprecise if you goo very far back or into the closer past.. thats true. But for the times that matter much of the data is very good..

This REQUIRES subjectivity to interpret, so the field is unusually subject to bias.

Yes and No.. But most of the analyses are done with statistical methods so that the subjective interpretation of raw data shouldnt matter much. The overall interpretation is normally clear enough to not to be prone to human biases. If D18O shows warm climate, palm trees were growing and CaCO3 did accrete you can pretty much say: Yes it was warm..
Also peer review is a nice measure against bias..

Add in the obvious political consequences and you should trust the findings even less.

See above. ALso political consequences are always quite over estimated. You pretty sure know your governments..

Getting funding is not easy, especially in a young field with a few top-scientists that see things the same way and review grants according to their own biases.

What about the normal grants from institutions like NSF, DFG and others? Normally they arent granting just because a topic is sexy.. also its normally not just a few top-scientists who decide..

[bb113]

Awesome. If you are in the field please correct me where wrong.

[bb113]

So you think politics play little role in determining climate funding, and there is a varied set of reviewers. I have read some of the peer reviews (PNAS publishes them) and they looked like they were written by people legitimately assessing the paper. So I don't really know the inner workings.

[Nachtwind]

Remember its not just those few people that run arround IPCC meetings that make climate science. There are thousands of scientists worldwide doing climate stuff and only the loudest part - the most annoying most of the time - are those getting media attention and therefore access to journals like PNAS, Science or Nature.. you must have either something groundbreaking or really really (publicly) interestering to get into those.. if you are jsut someone who works with that stuff youre normally not politically orientated and do your work..

sorry if i get too "excited" here but when doing climate research you often enough have to listen to the argument that youre either bought by the oil companies or the other side... but truth is: most people are not as biased as media makes the crowds think..

[bb113]

No one really knows what they are doing, and humans are fallible and subject to biases.

Well.. in paleoclimatics we mostly know what we are doing. It would be a lie to say that we know everything we do, but at least "understanding" the past works. Applying it on todays systems is hard due to the human impact.

So whats the deal with the clouds when modeling thousands or millions of years in the past? Without humans or satellites taking records (I think insolation is the term) they seem like a big unknown.

[Nachtwind]

No one really knows what they are doing, and humans are fallible and subject to biases.

Well.. in paleoclimatics we mostly know what we are doing. It would be a lie to say that we know everything we do, but at least "understanding" the past works. Applying it on todays systems is hard due to the human impact.

So whats the deal with the clouds when modeling thousands or millions of years in the past? Without humans or satellites taking records (I think insolation is the term) they seem like a big unknown.

Not sure about the inner workings of many models, but as far as i know clouds tend to be neglected or just described very very roughly. That happens due to the scale of climate models. Clouds are very short "events" in time and show as far as i know pretty constant insulation patterns over longer timeframes. So one cloud cannot be computed, but if you know the average cloudiness of an area in a year or 5 or 10 you can compute with such constants. Climate models mostly work with timeframes of 5yr+ - many that i know even only for 50yr+ intervals. So if you compute 50yrs a few clouds dont create much problems...
Also the area observed or simulated is important. Many models work on big scale cells. Europe, for example,  is often divided into 200x200 cells - which is a very coarse resolution. Of course, higher resolution is possible but due to the many variables used highly imprecise in simulation.
Also Insulation is especially driven by a very few variables that are well understood: astronomical cycles (see milankovic cycles) and water/ice movements. Those impose strong signals that make clouds, if they arent part of special circumstances, quite neglectible. But i am not a pro on this topics..

[Kettenmonster]

... but there IS a correlation..

A correlation prooves nothing. The statistics I have learned allows to say if there is no correlation then it is pretty sure not related.
Population and temperature is correlated as well, so lets kill some people for a better climate!

We can´t safely predict the weather for more than 3 days, but climate for the next centuries?

We're not talking about the weather. Here we talk about climate.

True and we can predict that? Use the same technique on weather or stocks and your done.

Look at the math inside the computer climate models. It is pure crystal orb contemplation.
Its just the vast amount of variables that really makes the job hard..

If you look into the climate models you will see a lot that is certainly not crystal orb contemplation.
True so true, but one "crystal orb" is enough to make the result void.
Tuning those parameters (you call them variable) until the wanted result appears, is what I consider cheating.

[dree12]

... but there IS a correlation..

Population and temperature is correlated as well, so lets kill some people for a better climate!

Unfortunately, this is completely true.

[FlipPro]

... but there IS a correlation..

Population and temperature is correlated as well, so lets kill some people for a better climate!

Unfortunately, this is completely true.

Our "human" impact on this earth can be reduced to almost 0 if we all did what we were supposed to do..

Unfortunately we have people carrying their own blind political agendas (ironically claiming we're the blind ones), who stifle progress every step of the way with their quasi-scientific theories, and poorly thought out methodologies...

[Nachtwind]

... but there IS a correlation..

A correlation prooves nothing. The statistics I have learned allows to say if there is no correlation then it is pretty sure not related.
Population and temperature is correlated as well, so lets kill some people for a better climate!

We can´t safely predict the weather for more than 3 days, but climate for the next centuries?

We're not talking about the weather. Here we talk about climate.

True and we can predict that? Use the same technique on weather or stocks and your done.

Look at the math inside the computer climate models. It is pure crystal orb contemplation.
Its just the vast amount of variables that really makes the job hard..

If you look into the climate models you will see a lot that is certainly not crystal orb contemplation.
True so true, but one "crystal orb" is enough to make the result void.
Tuning those parameters (you call them variable) until the wanted result appears, is what I consider cheating.

AS i said, climate reflects large scale cycles and not so much irregularities or pseudo random events if you take a reasonable timescale. Weather is pure "randomness" - as are the stockmarkets.
Also noone is predicting future climate, noone sane would ever try to. Our current models cant even simulate the known past well enough to be considered good for predicting. But with the error margin known for remodeling the past scenarious can be created for the future. Sorry if it sounds like talking down on you - i really dont want to do that, but you must be sure you know your vocabulary. Weather is not climate and predictions are not scenarios. We can predict weather to a certain degree, but as you know with a high error for more than three days - simulating climate or creating scenarios is totally different. Noone tells you it will be 3K warmer in 100years, scenarios tell you it MIGHT be between 2K and 5K warmer in roughly 100years IF certain parameters wont change or worsen. Also the models for climate modelling are changed every few years at the moment, each time they get better or at least higher in resolution and take more parameters into account, but normally they show quite the same results which is NOT a result of cheating or tampering with parameters to make them fit..

[RandyFolds]

AS i said, climate reflects large scale cycles and not so much irregularities or pseudo random events if you take a reasonable timescale. Weather is pure "randomness" - as are the stockmarkets.
Also noone is predicting future climate, noone sane would ever try to. Our current models cant even simulate the known past well enough to be considered good for predicting. But with the error margin known for remodeling the past scenarious can be created for the future. Sorry if it sounds like talking down on you - i really dont want to do that, but you must be sure you know your vocabulary. Weather is not climate and predictions are not scenarios. We can predict weather to a certain degree, but as you know with a high error for more than three days - simulating climate or creating scenarios is totally different. Noone tells you it will be 3K warmer in 100years, scenarios tell you it MIGHT be between 2K and 5K warmer in roughly 100years IF certain parameters wont change or worsen. Also the models for climate modelling are changed every few years at the moment, each time they get better or at least higher in resolution and take more parameters into account, but normally they show quite the same results which is NOT a result of cheating or tampering with parameters to make them fit..

The current models take more parameters into account, but what does that mean when there are literally infinite parameters? We are talking about nature.

[Kettenmonster]

... Sorry if it sounds like talking down on you - i really dont want to do that,

Don´t worry about that. I am vaccinated against it.  

The difference of weather and climate is well known to me. But both plus stock exchange have something in common.
The best prediction known is: Same as yesterday. Which works even better if you call it scenario.
Rereading the stuff i guess you got me all wrong.

Look what I wrote beneath:

I hate it when people come along with brilliant ideas, good plans but then spoil it all with wrong arguments.

p.s.
I must admit being sometimes rather obfuscating than explaining my reasoning.

[FirstAscent]

Ah sorry about the quote, it got messed up. And once again I think everyone agrees the earth has been warming. If you think something must be done about it whether or not it is due to man-made causes, ok. I would counter that perhaps adapting would be easier than developing climate control technology.

I, and about 7 billion others would benefit if you and others like you would drop this viewpoint. Let's review adaptation:

The rapid rate of heating (100 years) is far too fast for adaptation to occur the way you think of adaptation. Species are being forced to migrate northward in the Northern Hemisphere at the rate of a couple of feet a day due to increased temperatures. As they migrate northward at such astonishing speeds, they run into barriers, such as suburbs, mountains, etc. As a result, they become extinct.

Such mass extinctions reduce the productivity of the biosphere. It has been shown time and again that increased biodiversity, from the microscopic organisms in the soil to wolves which allow riparian environments to flourish (due to herds not grazing near creeks and rivers when wolves are present because of limited escape routes), allow the landscape to be more productive. What does that mean? It means that more biodiversity allows for greater production of food, greater cleansing of the atmosphere, and greater recycling of the elements within the soil. It means a healthier Earth.

Adaptation, like you imagine it, is really massive unprecedented extinction due to a rapid rise in global temperature, and a massive reduction in the natural productivity of our planet.

If that's what you want, keep on tooting your horn like you are.

[bb113]

First of all look up punctuated equilibrium. Rapid environmental change has probably been THE DRIVER of adaptation throughout the history of life on earth, it is not unprecedented at all. I am not saying it would not cause humanity trouble though. We benefit from a consistent climate.

Please provide historical data indicating that a 1 K average change in temperature is indeed much more rapid than normal and causes extinction. This may be true, and I will come across it in my own good time if you don't do it.

I'm not positive you a right about the biodiversity thing, but it makes sense. What is the evidence? See above if you don't provide it.

CO2 is plant food. There are other factors at play, it is not as simple as Rise in Temperature = Bad for life. Why do you think the current CO2 and temp levels are ideal?

[bb113]

And also you have entirely skipped over the possibility that it is not human CO2 emissions that is causing it, and therefore our efforts to curtail the temp rise will be worthless.

[bb113]

I really want to emphasize that in the end it is likely I come to the same conclusion as the climatologists (not the media portrayal). Once I looked a tiny bit into it, it was obvious that the media's narrative has been way overblown, a lot of people "believe in" AGW without knowing what they are talking about, and many people studying the climate think this is true as well. It is probably like Natchwind said and there are a few noise-makers in the bunch getting all the attention.

[FirstAscent]

I know all about punctuated equilibrium. It's irrelevant. The reason why it's irrelevant is because using it as a defense of your arguments is like saying the Chernobyl meltdown is fine because it forces adaptation.

But there's nothing fine about forcing adaptation when it simultaneously causes a near term apocalyptic scenario and is harmful to the current majority of residents of the planet, and is furthermore, unintentionally the result of a single species' activities.

An apocalyptic scenario is indeed beneficial to future surviving species far in the future after the planet regains its productive natural systems. But that doesn't mean it's desirable.

I am right about the biodiversity thing. You are free to wear blinders regarding it if you choose. But I don't know why you would choose to do so unless you think it might hinder your current views. Read some papers on wolves and riparian zones, or water quality programs in the state of New York, or agricultural studies of multi-plant crop productivity, or methods of pollination, etc., etc., etc.

[P4man]

Just curious, how do you expect to "adapt" to an anoxic event?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

Its entirely plausible we are triggering one.

[bb113]

I know all about punctuated equilibrium. It's irrelevant. The reason why it's irrelevant is because using it as a defense of your arguments is like saying the Chernobyl meltdown is fine because it forces adaptation.

But there's nothing fine about forcing adaptation when it simultaneously causes a near term apocalyptic scenario and is harmful to the current majority of residents of the planet, and is furthermore, unintentionally the result of a single species' activities.

An apocalyptic scenario is indeed beneficial to future surviving species far in the future after the planet regains its productive natural systems. But that doesn't mean it's desirable.

I am right about the biodiversity thing. You are free to wear blinders regarding it if you choose. But I don't know why you would choose to do so unless you think it might hinder your current views. Read some papers on wolves and riparian zones, or water quality programs in the state of New York, or agricultural studies of multi-plant crop productivity, or methods of pollination, etc., etc., etc.

Can you state what my argument is? You don't seem to be arguing against it.

Actually, I haven't even begun to look at the modeling or data but so far the introductions to the IPCC documents seem pretty much in line with what I've been saying:

The AGW theory is plausible, but far from proven:

At the continental scale, it is
likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming
over the past 50 years averaged over each of the continents
except Antarctica.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf (page 15)

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgement and statistical analysis of a body of evidence
(e.g., observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of
occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not >50%; about
as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.

There is historical evidence of climate changes much more extreme and abrupt than what we have witness so far:

The importance of other sources of climate variability was
heightened by the discovery of abrupt climate changes. In this
context, ‘abrupt’ designates regional events of large amplitude,
typically a few degrees celsius, which occurred within several
decades – much shorter than the thousand-year time scales
that characterise changes in astronomical forcing. Abrupt
temperature changes were fi rst revealed by the analysis of deep
ice cores from Greenland (Dansgaard et al., 1984). Oeschger
et al. (1984) recognised that the abrupt changes during the
termination of the last ice age correlated with cooling in
Gerzensee (Switzerland) and suggested that regime shifts in
the Atlantic Ocean circulation were causing these widespread
changes.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (page 106)

Clouds remain an important unknown parameter:

The strong effect of cloud processes on
climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized
further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model
(GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993).
They produced global average surface temperature changes
(due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from
1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative
properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling
that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically
altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parametrization
for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel
range of sensitivities.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (page 114)

The other thing is that I realized I have been stupidly creating a false dichotomy between adapting to and mitigating climate change. Obviously both strategies can be used at the same time.

[bb113]

Just curious, how do you expect to "adapt" to an anoxic event?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

Its entirely plausible we are triggering one.

Is it? Look at the temperatures and CO2 levels involved and compare those to the most drastic IPCC predictions.

[P4man]

Just curious, how do you expect to "adapt" to an anoxic event?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

Its entirely plausible we are triggering one.

Is it? Look at the temperatures and CO2 levels involved and compare those to the most drastic IPCC predictions.

If one assumes climate scientists can be dead wrong with their current predictions, it stands to reason they could err both ways, agreed?

Moreover, IPCC predictions are relatively short term (up to the year 2100 I believe), while the build up to previous anoxic events happened over 10s of 1000s of years. We could accomplish the same now in less than a century, but  Im not saying its very likely you and I would live to witness this.

Lastly, IPCC projections are if anything, by its very nature and due to the consensus model, very  conservative. Its one of the greatest criticism that the IPCC only reports "lowest common denominator" findings. Personally I find that  a completely reasonable approach as it greatly increases its credibility, but one shouldnt assume IPCC projections to be the worst possible case, because it definitely isnt.  FWIW, so far most of the earlier IPCC predictions relating to temperature rise, ice melting that have been proven to be wrong, is in the sense that they were too conservative.

BTW, I should check, but I believe previous anoxic events were triggered by a 6C temperature rise. I dont even think thats outside of IPCCs scenarios, but like I said, I should check both of those statements.

[bb113]

Agreed on the error, not so much on the equal plausibility. But, plausibility is subjective so whatever...

FWIW, so far most of the earlier IPCC predictions relating to temperature rise, ice melting etc have indeed proven to be wrong; in the sense that they were too conservative.

Do you have a source for this? The only good one I could find goes up to 2005 and the "temperature anomaly" has flattened out since then at about .4 C. Note that I may be confused as to the different baselines and temp records (global average, surface temp) so I am not positive if I am comparing correctly to get that flattening at .4 value.



http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (page 98)

FAR=1990   -> Overestimate
SAR= 1996  -> Underestimate (or correct?)
TAR= 2001  -> Overestimate (or within range)

[P4man]

You'll forgive me for linking news sites, feel free to look up the scientific papers they reference:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1696/ipcc-report-already-out-date

[bb113]

"Normally, you would use the heat content of the surface layer of water rather than just using the surface temperature because the surface temperature is affected by a lot of other factors," Dr Holgate observed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409.stm

Well I'm not really able to assess the virtues of these different ways of measuring temperature. But I would say that this is just talking about what a model has predicted if you plug in different parameters, it is not about actual measurements. So nothing has been proven wrong. In fact it looks like the trend of .25 cm/yr (so a rise of 25 cm in 100 years) has been breaking since that article. The model may be more complex than simply extrapolating a trendline though.



The second article is about emissions, not atmospheric concentration. Just to convert to GtC from metric tons, lets use this link:

* CO2 emissions grew 5.9% in 2010 to reach 9.1 GtC (33.5Gt CO2), overcoming a 1.4% decrease in CO2 emissions in 2009

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

IPCC predictions from 2000:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf

It appears the current level of emissions is at the low end of all the projections from 2000.

From the third article:

The new report notably fails to take into account a batch of dramatic recent evidence, including the shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap, glacier loss in Greenland, a surge in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and an apparent slowing of Earth's ability to absorb greenhouse gases, they say.

I will leave it up to you to find out what has happened since 2007, looking at the data I saw a consistent rise +2 ppm of CO2 each year for the last decade. So I'm not sure what surge they are talking about. Maybe it is measured in different ways? I can't tell because that article doesn't provide sources. I didn't bother with the ice cap and glacier loss because everything else was overestimated rather than underestimated and I have no source to follow. I would suggest you find the data to support your claim.

[P4man]

The second article is about emissions, not atmospheric concentration. Just to convert to GtC from metric tons, lets use this link:

I only dug deeper in to  this one, as its arguably the most important, and it seems you are correct. Here is a good rebuttal as well as explanation for the misrepresentation of the IPCC numbers by some scientists and media:

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/manning10natg.pdf

My bad for relying a news site.

That said, my basic point still stands. If one feels compelled to question current climate science because we do not know enough,  one has to take in to account the possibility of gross underestimation of the risks and effects by science too. Even as it stands, current scenarios predict a global temperature rise of up to 6.4C by next century, and from what Ive read, that would put the planet roughly at the same temperature as during the anoxic events.

My point is not that we are triggering one, but that it would seem at least as likely as the notion we can just discard climate science and its predictions.

[bb113]

Ok, a little on the philosophy (even though I think it is getting off topic):

That said, my basic point still stands. If one feels compelled to question current climate science because we do not know enough,  one has to take in to account the possibility of gross underestimation of the risks and effects by science too.

Yes, I am doing that for myself. It is a subjective, heuristic process that involves integrating all the information you have. It is called assigning a prior probability to each of the alternative possibilities, which then tells you how much credibility to give the evidence. I have been suggesting throughout this thread that people filter out the narrative given to them by the media and scientists with political motivations. It appears to me they are trying to manipulate each of us into assigning an unreasonably high prior to the possibility of catastrophic events so that we accept weak evidence.

Higher quality background info can be found by searching out where the uncertainty lies in climate science, and try to learn enough to estimate how much is really known for sure. If you aren't willing to go through that effort, the most rational thing is probably to just assign it 50/50 odds or just go with the scientific consensus (NOT THE MEDIA CONSENSUS). But honestly I learned pretty much all I know about this since last sunday while procrastinating. My background in research may make it easier for me personally, but I can't imagine it is that difficult for people to go through the IPCC report, visit some pro-AGW sites, and then visit some "denier" sites. Especially if this is something you feel strongly about.

My point is not that we are triggering one, but that it would seem at least as likely as the notion we can just discard climate science and its predictions.

I am not discarding climate science and its predictions, that is a strawman argument. If you were deciding between those two possibilities for whatever reason it would be unwise to give equal probability to both "climate scientists know nothing", and "global warming may lead to an anoxic event". The most obvious reason this would be dumb is the climate scientists are the ones who told you about anoxic events. You will quickly go down the rabbit hole with this type of thinking. You are not using any evidence and arbitrarily assigning equal priors.

Back to the evidence:

Even as it stands, current scenarios predict a global temperature rise of up to 6.4C by next century, and from what Ive read, that would put the planet roughly at the same temperature as during the anoxic events.

What is you source for the 6.4C number? It does not match any of the models I am looking at.

[P4man]

What is you source for the 6.4C number? It does not match any of the models I am looking at.

Its the upper bound for the A1FI scenario in AR4.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-1-mean-temperature.html

[bb113]

Oh ok, it got left out of the newer one.

[P4man]

Oh ok, it got left out of the newer one.

The newer assessment report isnt due until 2014. AR4 is the latest.

[bb113]

Ah, I was searching A1f1, not A1FI.

[bb113]

Ah, despite my best efforts I was manipulated by the media. The "incontrovertible evidence" was not for anthropomorphic climate change. It was just that "global warming is occurring".

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The evidence that the earth has warmed over the last century is pretty good. So I can't say I disagree with this statement. It says nothing about the cause, and only refers to future projections as "likely". The problem lies in the ignorant (used to be me) conflating "global warming" with "anthropomorphic global warming" and "has warmed" with "will continue to warm until catastrophic scenarios occur unless something is done". I am ashamed I fell for this, but it goes to show how insidious the media and "telephone effect" can be.

[P4man]

It says nothing about the cause,

Read more carefully

Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans. Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.

It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis technique.

Further evidence has accumulated of an anthropogenic influence on the temperature of the free atmosphere as measured by radiosondes and satellite-based instruments. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion. The combination of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere has likely led to an increase in the height of the tropopause. It is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the general warming observed in the upper several hundred meters of the ocean during the latter half of the 20th century. Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies.


...

Overall consistency of evidence. Many observed changes in surface and free atmospheric temperature, ocean temperature and sea ice extent, and some large-scale changes in the atmospheric circulation over the 20th century are distinct from internal variability and consistent with the expected response to anthropogenic forcing. The simultaneous increase in energy content of all the major components of the climate system as well as the magnitude and pattern of warming within and across the different components supports the conclusion that the cause of the warming is extremely unlikely (<5%) to be the result of internal processes. Qualitative consistency is also apparent in some other observations, including snow cover, glacier retreat and heavy precipitation.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html

[P4man]

Or if you prefer, from the synthesis report for policy makers:

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4 growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2}

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings


Well, read it for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

[Hawker]

P4man - you are not going to get anywhere.  Libertarians don't deny climate change based on evidence.  They deny it because if its real, only governments can act on it and their whole ideology falls down. 

You can quote facts and figures forever.  They won't agree with you because first they'd have to accept a role for the state that is unbearable for them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56832.0

[BinoX]

Here's a fun thing to do when it comes to "global warming statistics".. and I swear I must have been the only person to do it so far...

Compare human population growth to the increases in CO2 concentration per year...

Overall CO2 concentration increase PER PERSON is actually going down a lot

[P4man]

I was responding to a specific statement by bitcoinbitcoin113, not to "libertarian agw deniers" in general.

As for that latter group, most sane libertarians arent saying we should get rid of governments and regulations entirely and there is a role for it to tackle problems the free market can not; agw would be one those, admittedly, a big one since even big government proponents will find it hard to come up with appropriate and effective solutions. FWIW, Ive seen some reasontv clips with die hard libertarians who had no problem admitting the effectiveness of certain government regulation particularly when it comes to pollution. The example quoted IIRC was lead free fuels.

If the catholic church can come around to accept a round earth and evolution despite what the bible says, I am confident rational libertarians can accept scientific evidence for agw.  And if they can come up with free market solutions to help solve the problem, everyone wins because despite not being a die hard libertarian myself, I also have precious little faith in governments solving it.

[bb113]

P4man - you are not going to get anywhere.  Libertarians don't deny climate change based on evidence.  They deny it because if its real, only governments can act on it and their whole ideology falls down. 

You can quote facts and figures forever.  They won't agree with you because first they'd have to accept a role for the state that is unbearable for them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56832.0

P4man - you are not going to get anywhere.  Socialists don't accept climate change based on evidence.  They accept it because if its real, only governments can act on it and their whole ideology is vindicated. 

You can quote facts and figures forever.  They won't agree with you because first they'd have to accept that the state is unnecessary, that is unbearable for them.

Do you see how pointless this post is? It is meant to end discussion and debate, not foster it.  Please go away if you have nothing to add. P4man is actually really helping me along as I learn about global warming. He may not know all about the science (which is what I ultimately care about) but he seems to have been paying much more attention to the public debate than I have and so is able to act as a sanity check and provide valuable input.

Think about what you are doing. You are actively discouraging the continuation of what I consider to so far have been a productive thread. I can't speak for P4man but since he continues to participate he must find some value in it as well.

[bb113]

I'd add that the various AGW and denier sites are filled with posts like yours that are annoying to wade through and make it more difficult to get informed. When people on "both sides" are saying the exact same things like mirror images of each other, that should tell you how worthless such arguments are.

[bb113]

It says nothing about the cause,

Read more carefully

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html

Or if you prefer, from the synthesis report for policy makers:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

I was talking specifically about the "incontrovertible evidence" phrase used by the APS (not IPCC) so I don't think I failed to read carefully.

I am aware that the authors of the IPCC reports have reasoned that it is very unlikely that known "natural" causes can account for the observed warming, it is more plausible that human activity is responsible than that some other "natural" cause has been missed, and the most likely mechanism by which man is warming the climate is greenhouse gas emissions.

I wish to become familiar with the evidence that supports this reasoning, so that I can reason for myself rather than rely on the priors (the way they are reasoning is necessarily subjective) used by the IPCC scientists. Also, there is much more uncertainty about future projections. These are arguably the most important aspect from a non-academic standpoint, but understanding projections requires first understanding the reasoning behind the explanations for the data.

[FirstAscent]

bitcoinbitcoin113,

You might want to investigate the source of skepticism regarding AGW, and the methods used to create such skepticism. Skepticism is good if it isn't tainted by deceptive practices and motivated and funded by Big Oil.

To begin, investigate Frederick Seitz, and learn about his role in both obfuscating the truth about cigarettes, and later, Global Warming. First he was hired by RJ Renynolds, and later, Exxon Mobil. He's a classic example of being bought by money. He was behind the dubious and worthless Oregon Petition. If you wish to learn about the credentials of the Oregon Petition signers, google their names. I can assure you that you will not find any associated credentials related to research regarding climate change with the signers' names.

You may not know it, but you are a victim of these deceitful tactics. These methods produce propaganda, which ultimately does find its way to your ears, through various channels, often by roundabout means, such by the time you hear it, it's a general buzz in the media which causes you and others to question solid science. It's sad.

After you've investigated Frederick Seitz, read this topic I created to learn more about the absurdly unqualified credentials and methods of those who are largely responsible for the general skepticism of climate change science:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.msg491021

Think hard about the following question: if climate change science is so unsound, then why is it not debated and defeated with solid scientific research and facts, instead of the likes of dubious think tanks funded by Big Oil, petitions signed by dentists, scientists who also coincidentally dispute the harm of tobacco smoke, and charlatans putting out rags (Environment & Climate News) purporting to be environmental experts when in fact their real claim to fame is law and being a defender of property rights?

[bb113]

If you read the thread you will see that I agree with you. I disagree with your (likely) reliance on the media to tell you what the "climate scientists" (not a homogenous group) are saying.

[FirstAscent]

If you read the thread you will see that I agree with you. I disagree with your (likely) reliance on the media to tell you what the "climate scientists" (not a homogenous group) are saying.

There is a publication - it is called 'Nature': http://www.nature.com/

There is another publication - it is called 'Science': http://www.sciencemag.org/

There is a third publication - it is called Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/

The first two are in fact not media. They are the mechanism of science, which is peer reviewed research. The third is not mainstream media, but rather scientific reporting by scientists for the layman. Those are my sources.

[bb113]

Actually nature and science usually publish the most worthless papers if your goal is actually understanding how a study was done etc. They are good in that they usually require the authors to provide multiple lines of evidence for each claim. I honestly don't have that much experience with climatology so I'm not sure how true this is for that field. (Maybe Natchwind could help us here) Right now I am focusing on the IPCC reports since I think they will probably provide a good overview before getting into the details.

[P4man]

If you read the thread you will see that I agree with you. I disagree with your (likely) reliance on the media to tell you what the "climate scientists" (not a homogenous group) are saying.

This is a problem that governments also faced. They solved it by creating the largest and most rigid ever attempt to synthesize all the available science on a particular topic, in this case, climate change. Its called the IPCC. There isnt a better way to find out what "the climate scientists" are saying. If you really think you can do better on your own, feel free, but its laughable.

[bb113]

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

[FirstAscent]

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

Who's discouraging you? You have the IPCC and scientific journals - both of which have been suggested in the last ten minutes. That sounds like encouragement to me.

[P4man]

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

I am not. By all means read and learn. But its nonsensical to give more weight to your own conclusions which are inevitably based on a tiny subset of all the available science (and likely, with very limited ability to properly parse the science) than to the IPCC report. What the IPCC does, is not producing science but reviewing science, what you seem to be doig, and that by itself is a monumental task thats carried about by 100s of our brightest scientists. To put it mildly, a single layman is not likely to make a more accurate assessment.

[FirstAscent]

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

I am not. By all means read and learn. But its nonsensical to give more weight to your own conclusions which are inevitably based on a tiny subset of all the available science (and likely, with very limited ability to properly parse the science) than to the IPCC report. What the IPCC does, is not producing science but reviewing science, what you seem to be doig, and that by itself is a monumental task thats carried about by 100s of our brightest scientists. To put it mildly, a single layman is not likely to make a more accurate assessment.

But he doesn't trust the IPCC, probably because of the email scandal, which in my opinion, was the result of a few scientists being frustrated by all the brownlash propaganda, and thus feeling a need to bolster data to fight the Big Oil propaganda.

[bb113]

Ok, then I will continue to do what I have been saying I was doing this entire time. Most of this thread has been me trying to find out what source of information was considered authoritative. Skepticalscience, IPCC, etc. Once that was established (I am the one who first introduced the IPCC reports into this thread), I thought we could stop talking about the earth turning into venus etc. Then P4man moved the goalposts back with his talk of anoxic events, and now we have returned to accepting the IPCC as the authoritative source. If the media disagrees with the IPCC, then the media is wrong. Agreed?

But he doesn't trust the IPCC, probably because of the email scandal, which in my opinion, was the result of a few scientists being frustrated by all the brownlash propaganda, and thus feeling a need to bolster data to fight the Big Oil propaganda.

I trust the IPCC as much as I trust any group of scientists, I have never even read the climategate emails. I bet it is just a bunch of technical talk taken out of context. Maybe some extra "we want to prove this theory" rather than only testing hypotheses. This is normal (although not really good) for scientists to do.

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.

[bb113]

Well, to be honest I trust the IPCC slightly less than other groups of scientists due to how politicized climate science has become.

[FirstAscent]

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.

Take a hard investigative look at Frederick Seitz, the Oregon Petition and the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. They are the prime sources for creating skepticism regarding climate science. Look hard at their methods, their credentials, their funding sources, and their motivations.

Their methods are deceptive. I've explained this.

Their credentials are typically self appointed economic theorists.

Their funding sources are always Big Oil.

Their motivations are zero regulations and property rights (libertarians).

The information is all there.

[bb113]

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.

Take a hard investigative look at Frederick Seitz, the Oregon Petition and the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. They are the prime sources for creating skepticism regarding climate science. Look hard at their methods, their credentials, their funding sources, and their motivations.

Their methods are deceptive. I've explained this.

Their credentials are typically self appointed economic theorists.

Their funding sources are always Big Oil.

Their motivations are zero regulations and property rights (libertarians).

The information is all there.

I don't know what this has to do with me. I already assume that oil companies are putting out disinfo, the cato institute is known to be corporatist, and the other people and groups you describe probably are too. I think my time would be better spent reading IPCC reports.

[FirstAscent]

I don't know what this has to do with me. I already assume that oil companies are putting out disinfo, the cato institute is known to be corporatist, and the other people and groups you describe probably are too. I think my time would be better spent reading IPCC reports.

You need to understand the source of your skepticism.

Let's assume that you might not be fully able to parse the science (which is probably true for most of us). An alternative and equally viable method to strengthen your view of climate science data is to look closely at the best arguments that big money can produce against climate change. And those arguments lack credibility when examined closer.

I'm strongly suggesting that you take a hard look at the Oregon Petition. Look at its methods and credibility. Question why it was created, given the means with which it was created.

[FirstAscent]

It is in fact quite funny. The Oregon Petition actually proves that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that climate change data is sound and solid.

Because if the science wasn't sound, then there would be an equal amount of credible scientific data arguing against climate change, and the dubious Oregon Petition either wouldn't have been necessary at all, or would've contained signatures of actual published climate change scientists with data against climate change instead of signatures of dentists, engineers, surgeons, etc.

[bb113]

I don't know what this has to do with me. I already assume that oil companies are putting out disinfo, the cato institute is known to be corporatist, and the other people and groups you describe probably are too. I think my time would be better spent reading IPCC reports.

You need to understand the source of your skepticism.

Oh? You know the source of my skepticism? I have never heard of the things you are talking about, yet they are the most likely source of my skepticism?

The source of my skepticism has been described very clearly in this thread. I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist. They both agreed that things were not nearly as clearcut as the media/NASA would have people believe. I began reading various AGW and denier sites. I read the most recent lindzen paper and the peer reviewer comments from PNAS. The I moved on to the IPCC reports. So far the IPCC reports have confirmed for me that things are much more nuanced than most people are willing to take the time to understand. Why else would the thing be 900 pages long?

I have no idea who you are arguing with but it is not me.

[FirstAscent]

My above post about the Oregon Petition stands. You really do need to factor it in.

[FirstAscent]

I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

[FirstAscent]

Did you know that the Heartland Institute likes to trot out the Oregon Petition as an important document which purportedly disputes climate change?

[FirstAscent]

Oh? You know the source of my skepticism? I have never heard of the things you are talking about, yet they are the most likely source of my skepticism?

The source of my skepticism has been described very clearly in this thread. I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

So, yes, I do know the source of your skepticism. It's in part the words of Richard Lindzen, as acknowledged by you just now, and apparently with you not realizing that he is an associate of the very firms and documents that I've been claiming are the source of your skepticism.

[bb113]

I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

While this is an improvement (at least now you have a connection), and I will look into it... I believe you still have a logic failure.

Did you know Richard Lindzen was lead author on chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC report?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

[bb113]

I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.

Oregon Petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.

[FirstAscent]

I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

While this is an improvement (at least now you have a connection), and I will look into it. I believe you still have a logic failure.

Did you know Richard Lindzen was lead author on chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC report?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

Then clearly he should not be, if he chooses to affiliate himself with organizations such as the Heartland Institute. And that would be because the Heartland Institute promotes the Oregon Petition, is funded by Exxon Mobil, and puts out a publication entitled 'Environment and Climate News', when in fact its editor has zero credentials in those fields.

[gewure]

“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.  Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

Let's see how this mistake could have happened.

Who owns the map maker ?

In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out.

Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background.

Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with...

All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps.

Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers...

+

[bb113]

You'll notice that the original story hasn't been mentioned since the first page of this thread. So apparently noone really cares.

[FirstAscent]

I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.

Oregon Petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.

Learn about the Oregon Petition, the background of its signers, the deception as to the credentials of the signers, its connection with Frederick Seitz, it's masquerade through its look as a document published by a particular scientific organization, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition

There are plenty more dissections of the petition if you feel so inclined to question the sources of your skepticism.

[bb113]

I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.

Oregon Petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.

Learn about the Oregon Petition, the background of its signers, the deception as to the credentials of the signers, its connection with Frederick Seitz, it's masquerade through its look as a document published by a particular scientific organization, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition

There are plenty more dissections of the petition if you feel so inclined to question the sources of your skepticism.

No, please find where there is a contradiction. I want to find out if you know what you are talking about or not.

[FirstAscent]

I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.

Oregon Petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.

Learn about the Oregon Petition, the background of its signers, the deception as to the credentials of the signers, its connection with Frederick Seitz, it's masquerade through its look as a document published by a particular scientific organization, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition

There are plenty more dissections of the petition if you feel so inclined to question the sources of your skepticism.

No, please find where there is a contradiction. I want to find out if you know what you are talking about or not.

Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. The premise of the Oregon Petition is signed largely by dentists, surgeons, engineers and others who cannot actually support the conclusions the Oregon Petition puts forth. Thus, I ask you to tell me why the Oregon Petition felt compelled to seek out the signatures of non-experts and then imply that the petition was comprised of climate science experts. Please address that. I have provided you with a list of the signers, and in general, when you google their names, the expectation is that if they were experts, published papers on climate science would appear as results. But that does not occur. Furthermore, please address Frederick Seitz's involvement, given his history.

[bb113]

So you know nothing about global warming, the IPCC, or the climate.

There is evidence the oil companies are backing biased research and public info campaigns. Ok, fine.
What else do you know?

[FirstAscent]

So you know nothing about global warming, the IPCC, or the climate.

There is evidence the oil companies are backing biased research and public info campaigns. Ok, fine.
What else do you know?

I do know stuff about climate change. Don't make accusations. Do you want to talk about ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, species extinction, or perhaps Milankovitch cycles?

[bb113]

Oregon Petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

I believe this statement is consistent with the IPCC reports. Do you agree? If not, please explain where the petition contradicts the claims of the IPCC.

[FirstAscent]

So you know nothing about global warming, the IPCC, or the climate.

I believe this statement is inconsistent with reality. Do you agree?

[bb113]

How would I know?

As far as I can tell, your evidence is:
Oil companies are funding biased campaigns with the goal of fostering "skepticism of AGW".

Therefore:
Actually I have no idea what your conclusion is. What is it?

[FirstAscent]

How would I know?

I don't know how you would know. But you made the statement, so presumably you do know. Why are you asking me how you would know what you claim? Perhaps you should retract your accusation?

As far as I can tell, your evidence is:
Oil companies are funding biased campaigns with the goal of fostering "skepticism of AGW".

Please explain the justification and necessity of said propaganda and the general absence of science supporting it by individuals not associated with those organizations putting out the propaganda.

Therefore:
Actually I have no idea what your conclusion is. What is it?

The conclusion is: there would seem to be a near complete lack of credible science against AGW. The evidence is the apparent inability of those against AGW to put forth material that is neither deceptive nor funded by those who stand to gain the most financially from solutions which would inhibit AGW.

[bb113]

So, do you consider the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) credible science?

[BadBear]

I don't even know what you two are arguing about anymore.

[P4man]

Oregon Petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

I believe this statement is consistent with the IPCC reports. Do you agree? If not, please explain where the petition contradicts the claims of the IPCC.

I dont even know why you feel this is worth debating, given whats already said about it, given its 15 years old. Its clear what the goal of the petition is: stop Kyoto. Back then youd find many proponents of that, even among those that didnt dispute AGW. Its not like Kyoto was perfect. But the first phrase makes it clear this is NOT about assessment of science, but a political statement.

Anyway, lets parse the text (which has been modified frequently, even after people "signed it"); "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment". Id like to see evidence of that?
" hinder the advance of science and technology, "
This can be argued, though the exact opposite can be argued just as well. Again Id like to see solid scientific evidence for this. Its a hollow and meaningless phrase IMO.
"and damage the health and welfare of mankind." Welfare, for some ppl, probably yes. Health? show me the evidence.

"
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"

Please note, even back then, they were apparently not denying human impact on the climate. Only that they found the evidence for it causing catastrophic heating unconvincing. In 1995 that might have been accurate. Even today, one might say its unproven, depending how you define catastrophic, and how you factor in likelyhoods, but the evidence has certainly increased dramatically. Even in 2001, so 11 years ago, scientific american polled some of the signatories, and found 2/3 would no longer sign that statement. How many do you think today?

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Hugely misleading statement. but on the face of it, certainly true. Some plants and some animals in some environments will definitely benefit for some time. But then thats true for most ecological disasters.

Thats about all the time I want to waste discussing a political pamphlet signed 15 years ago by mostly non climate scientists the majority of whom no longer seem to support it today. If thats the best skeptics can come up with, there seems to be precious little skepticism.

[FirstAscent]

If thats the best skeptics can come up with, there seems to be precious little skepticism.

And that is exactly the point. The best argument against the credibility of AGW is a deceptive and essentially faked document, masquerading as a publication of the National Academy of Sciences (but is not really) and developed in part by a man who was first hired by RJ Reynolds to obfuscate the dangers of tobacco smoke, and later by Exxon Mobil to obfuscate climate change.

And what is so hilariously funny is how those who claim to be skeptics also claim to not be swayed by the propaganda of certain institutions, but instead cite debates by individuals who are in fact associated with those very institutions. And those institutions continue to cite the Oregon Petition as if it actually had merit.

Sad and pathetic.

[bb113]

I was trying to get First Ascent to reveal the depth of his knowledge. I agree it is a waste of time to discuss this old, non-scientific document and it is taking the thread off track. I just have a hypothesis that many people who vehemently support the scientific consensus don't actually know what it is.

And what is so hilariously funny is how those who claim to be skeptics also claim to not be swayed by the propaganda of certain institutions, but instead cite debates by individuals who are in fact associated with those very institutions. And those institutions continue to cite the Oregon Petition as if it actually had merit.

Once again, Richard Lindzen was also lead author on the 2001 IPCC report... and I agreed with the other debater as well (who I am assuming has no connections to these various propaganda institutes).

[FirstAscent]

I was trying to get First Ascent to reveal the depth of his knowledge. I agree it is a waste of time to discuss this old, non-scientific document and it is taking the thread off track. I just have a hypothesis that many people who vehemently support the scientific consensus don't actually know what it is.

How is demonstrating in detail that the source of skepticism regarding climate change is linked to deception funded by Big Oil, rather than actual credible science?

Laughably, you were the one claiming that your skepticism was not derived from such material after I accused you being susceptible to such material. You then went on to indicate that your skepticism was derived in part by a debate, which I then pointed out to you that the participant in said debate (the one you mentioned) was indeed one of the very associates of the questionable firms and institutes I mentioned earlier. That's funny.

And very relevant.

Post credible scientific research which seriously calls into question AGW and show that that published research was not carried out by individuals who have links to organizations and institutes masquerading as experts in climate science but in fact are libertarian think tanks funded by big oil.

[P4man]

He is trapped in a logical fallacy. Because Richard Lindzen worked on one of the IPCC reports, he thinks he has to be credible to us, and anything he says has to.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Think about it this way; what if some extreme alarmist scientist that also worked on an IPCC report predicted an imment apocalypse on some tv show or in a book? Is there any reason to give more weight to his opinions than Lindzens?
Credibility is derived from the scientific process, not the personae.

[bb113]

And that is exactly the point. The best argument against the credibility of AGW is a deceptive and essentially faked document, masquerading as a publication of the National Academy of Sciences (but is not really) and developed in part by a man who was first hired by RJ Reynolds to obfuscate the dangers of tobacco smoke, and later by Exxon Mobil to obfuscate climate change.

This is the error of your way of reasoning. How can you reconcile this with the fact he was lead author for the IPCC? Surely all they publish, and all who are associated with that organization must be viewed with the same amount of doubt. It is better to cut through the bullshit and look at the actual evidence, inform yourself of the interpretations of the experts, and form your own conclusions. If you are someone without the will/time to do the third part, it is completely rational to stop after the second. Just remember you are now either relying on argument from consensus, and/or argument from authority. These are useful heuristics, but also logical fallacies.

He is trapped in a logical fallacy. Because Richard Lindzen worked on one of the IPCC reports, he thinks he has to be credible to us, and anything he says has to.

No, that is incorrect.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Yes, I agree completely.

[FirstAscent]

He is trapped in a logical fallacy. Because Richard Lindzen worked on one of the IPCC reports, he thinks he has to be credible to us, and anything he says has to.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Lindzen resigned from the IPCC panel after the IPCC rewrote what he authored. He also claims that there is little to no link in tobacco smoke and lung cancer. He is also a member of a Maryland based think tank funded by Exxon Mobil. He's a keynote speaker for the Heartland Institute.

Plenty of other stuff too. Google him. The IPCC does not agree with him.

[bb113]

He is trapped in a logical fallacy. Because Richard Lindzen worked on one of the IPCC reports, he thinks he has to be credible to us, and anything he says has to.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Lindzen resigned from the IPCC panel after the IPCC rewrote what he authored. He also claims that there is little to no link in tobacco smoke and lung cancer. He is also a member of a Maryland based think tank funded by Exxon Mobil. He's a keynote speaker for the Heartland Institute.

Plenty of other stuff too. Google him. The IPCC does not agree with him.

Ah I didn't know his chapter was "rewrote" and he resigned. It is a good thing that does not affect my way of reasoning at all. It would be interesting to look at the changes made though. Source?

[bb113]

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Yes, I agree completely.

Ok, to nuance this. I agree, except I place less faith in the peer review process than you do.

[FirstAscent]

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Yes, I agree completely.

Ok, to nuance this. I agree, except I place less faith in the peer review process than you do.

Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.

[P4man]

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Yes, I agree completely.

Ok, to nuance this. I agree, except I place less faith in the peer review process than you do.

 
Thats remarkable. A peer review process does not guarantee perfect science, but it does guarantee better science than a non reviewed publication. Or are you really saying that your math or computer code is more accurate if no one else checks it?

[bb113]

Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

The issue here is not Richard Lindzens credibility as a person or even scientist. Whatever Lindzen wrote for the IPCC is credible, not because of the person, but because of the peer review process and unanimous approval. Not much room for personal biases there.
Lindzen debating on tv otoh, is quite something else.

Yes, I agree completely.

Ok, to nuance this. I agree, except I place less faith in the peer review process than you do.

 
Thats remarkable. A peer review process does not guarantee perfect science, but it does guarantee better science than a non reviewed publication. Or are you really saying that your math or computer code is more accurate if no one else checks it?

Agreed completely. It is superior to no review but not perfect. If I could think of a better way I would be trying to implement it. We could also talk about the various technicalities of how peer review works in reality (reviewers have too many papers to read without enough time, big names get easier reviews, etc) but that would be a different thread. Also I am not familiar with exactly how the system works in climate science. I can only really speak for pharmacology and neuroscience.

[FirstAscent]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

There is nothing stereotyped about my reasoning. I'm pointing out the connections between the source material which makes claims that AGW is not real and why that material is not real science, but rather generally, deceptive propaganda masquerading as science. That's rather serious. It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

[bb113]

By stereotyped I meant you appeared unable to adapt your ideas to be relevant to the conversation at hand or who you were talking to. You were arguing with a strawman. With this post:

Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.

You have shown you now understand.

[bb113]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please state what you think my opinion is.

[FirstAscent]

By stereotyped I meant you appeared unable to adapt your ideas to be relevant to the conversation at hand or who you were talking to. You were arguing with a strawman. With this post:

Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.

You have shown you now understand.

Sorry, but my posts have been very relevant to the post you have quoted from me above, as they have built the foundation which helps define and guide what compelling science really is.

Nothing appears to be more indicative of a strawman argument than this statement:

By stereotyped I meant you appeared unable to adapt your ideas to be relevant to the conversation at hand or who you were talking to. You were arguing with a strawman.

Sad.

[FlipPro]

Epic thread. 

[bb113]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please state what you think my opinion is.

In case it got missed due the fast pace of this thread... I really want to know this.

[FlipPro]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please state what you think my opinion is.

In case it got missed due the fast pace of this thread... I really want to know this.

I think you believe greenhouse gasses are not a contributing factor to Global Warming when in-fact they are.

If that's not what you believe, then you are just simply trolling, and trying to push false ideas on Internet for whatever incentive (money?) it may be...

[FirstAscent]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please state what you think my opinion is.

I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:

1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.

2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.

3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.

4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.

5. LOL.

[bb113]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please state what you think my opinion is.

I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:

1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.

2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.

3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.

4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.

5. LOL.

There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.

[FirstAscent]

Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.

It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.

Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.

Please state what you think my opinion is.

I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:

1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.

2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.

3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.

4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.

5. LOL.

There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.

There are zero problems with the timeline outlined above. I think your desire to skip over it (sweep it under the rug, so to speak) is because it's an outrageously true and embarrassingly inconvenient summary of my dialog with you.

[P4man]

There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.

Quite frankly: who cares?

[bb113]

There are zero problems with the timeline outlined above. I think your desire to skip over it (sweep it under the rug, so to speak) is because it's an outrageously true and embarrassingly inconvenient summary of my dialog with you.

Ok, so you have refused to indicate you know anything about climate science. You have refused to indicate you understand what I am saying (e.g. know what my opinion is). What is your purpose here?

There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.

Quite frankly: who cares?

Well, is it obvious hes a troll or ignorant yet to anyone who will come to read this? I'm not sure.

[grue]

In this thread:

• deniers trying to argue with 99% of the scientific community because 1% of the 99% did something questionable
• deniers selectively choosing evidence because of confirmation bias

[P4man]

Well, is it obvious hes a troll or ignorant yet to anyone who will come to read this? I'm not sure.

What I meant is: who cares what you think? Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are no one special. Like me, FirstAscent is responding to your posts, not to what anyone would guess goes on in your mind. I dont give a hoot what you secretly think.

[bb113]

In this thread:

• deniers trying to argue with 99% of the scientific community because 1% of the 99% did something questionable
• deniers selectively choosing evidence because of confirmation bias

Wow, who is doing this? Was it me? Please provide an example.

Well, is it obvious hes a troll or ignorant yet to anyone who will come to read this? I'm not sure.

What I meant is: who cares what you think? Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are no one special. Like me, FirstAscent is responding to your posts, not to what anyone would guess goes on in your mind. I dont give a hoot what you secretly think.

Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. You should care about what I think just as much as I care about what you think I guess. I have no idea what you mean by "secretly think". I have stated what my opinion is multiple times.

[FirstAscent]

Ok, so you have refused to indicate you know anything about climate science. You have refused to indicate you understand what I am saying (e.g. know what my opinion is). What is your purpose here?

The above statement is dripping with troll excrement. I clearly stated earlier that I do know about the following: ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, Milankovitch Cycles, and species extinction as caused by climate change. You willfully put on your blinders then.

As for what you are saying, perhaps my refusal to acknowledge exactly what your opinion is is because you have not been effective at articulating it.

Why don't you clearly state what your opinion is instead of asking us to guess it?

As to my purpose, thus far it has been to indicate the severe effects climate change will have upon our ecosystem if we choose to ignore it, and point out that you indeed are a victim of the propaganda put forth by libertarian think tanks, despite you not knowing it.

As a supplement to my primary purpose here, it would appear that my secondary purpose is to defend myself against your trollish remarks.

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

This is what I think. I would update it to include that the "incontrovertible proof" phrasing was not with regards to CO2, I was lazy and didn't check primary sources. My bad, and the climate change researchers got a big plus in credibility for that. Other than that, nothing in this thread or what I've been reading elsewhere has changed my mind.

The above statement is dripping with troll excrement. I clearly stated earlier that I do know about the following: ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, Milankovitch Cycles, and species extinction as caused by climate change. You willfully put on your blinders then.

You recited a list of related topics... nowhere have you indicated any understanding, or lack of (for that matter), these topics. So I honestly don't know.

[FirstAscent]

You recited a list of related topics... nowhere have you indicated any understanding, or lack of (for that matter), these topics. So I honestly don't know.

It is not my responsibility to prove that I have any knowledge on these subjects. But by clearly stating that I do, it would be obvious that I am inviting discussion on those topics if you would only engage, rather than harp.

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

[FirstAscent]

Completely independent of any ambiguity regarding cloud layer feedback loops, there are ice albedo feedback loops, which have no ambiguity with regard to their processes.

[bb113]

Right, it is the net feedback that counts in the end.

[FirstAscent]

Right, it is the net feedback that counts in the end.

Yes, and the net temperature rise coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age appears to be happening despite the slide into a new ice age as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles. One cannot really argue that Milankovitch cycles are the cause of Global Warming, as they indicate that we are sliding into the next ice age since about 6,000 years ago.

So what's causing a temperature rise and melting glaciers?

[bb113]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "net temperature"...
Anyway there are multiple lines of evidence the temperature has been rising the last 100 years (about 0.6 K so far). The most plausible explanation for this rise is anthropomorphic CO2. While there is no historical evidence for increased atmospheric CO2 forcing a temperature rise, over the last 100 years there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature. In addition, there are multiple lines of supporting evidence that CO2 is the cause.

[bb113]

So yea, unless someone is willing to propose a conspiracy to fake the temperature rise over the last century (which I have seen no strong evidence for). I consider this undisputed.

[bb113]

Completely independent of any ambiguity regarding cloud layer feedback loops, there are ice albedo feedback loops, which have no ambiguity with regard to their processes.

Actually, on rereading this I take issue with "completely independent" and "no ambiguity". You are probably overstating the certainty of ice albedo models under various conditions. I haven't looked for info otherwise, but you are making an extraordinarily un-nuanced claim here.

[Snapman]

For those of you who believe the crap al gore spews, then you need to have your fucking heads examined. You guys do know that one of his most recent purchases of realestate  was a fucking home on the shoreside. U'd think if he really believed in that shit he was spreading, he would have build something up in the hills.

As for the OP, speak that truth brotha

[FlipPro]

For those of you who believe the crap al gore spews, then you need to have your fucking heads examined. You guys do know that one of his most recent purchases of realestate  was a fucking home on the shoreside. U'd think if he really believed in that shit he was spreading, he would have build something up in the hills.

As for the OP, speak that truth brotha

Real intelligent.

[FirstAscent]

U'd think if he really believed in that shit he was spreading, he would have build something up in the hills.

Why? Please explain. I'm assuming that you're bright enough to be thinking that my question isn't as dumb as it sounds and that perhaps you're being set up.

[Matthew N. Wright]

UNSUBSCRIBE! UNSUBSCRIBE! UNSUBSCRIBE!

[P4man]

For those of you who believe the crap al gore spews, then you need to have your fucking heads examined. Y

I hear Al Gore also claims the earth is round, rather than flat. Im not entirely sure if he discovered that himself, or if he discovered AGW himself, but if he says so, it has to be untrue, right? Its clearly Al Gore we are discussing and not what scientists say.

[Bind]

For those of you who believe the crap al gore spews, then you need to have your fucking heads examined. Y

I hear Al Gore also claims the earth is round, rather than flat. Im not entirely sure if he discovered that himself, or if he discovered AGW himself, but if he says so, it has to be untrue, right? Its clearly Al Gore we are discussing and not what scientists say.

There is always a bit of truth to add credibility. There were times when the earth had warmed and had fewer ice caps, and we are fine.

There were mini ice ages, and we are fine.

In 1972 the international people and groups behind all the global scares claimed global cooling and if we didnt act we would be extinct. No one believed them and we are fine. The sames families, groups, and people behind the global warming scare today. We will be fine.

Sames goes for every claim of "end of the world" and "extinction" thats based on bastardized "science". Science which any scientists detracting from the "official consensus" is deleted, marginalized, fired, or murdered in the name of the agenda. That agenda is a few controlling everyone else and the worlds resources, and stealing your wealth, freedom, and rights, so that the global community is lead by a few. After all, in these times of peril and threat of extinction, we need to have world leadership and no borders.

The bottom line is if it ever happens, it wont be mans fault and there will be nothing we can do about it except dig a hole and stock foodstuffs, which might let us live a couple minutes longer in the grand scheme.

What I dont like is the stealing of our rights, freedoms, sovereignty, and wealth in the process in the name of "saving the world" that decreases the quality of life and severely limits peoples ability to live well and survive NOW.

[Hawker]

bind - if its proven that global warming is real, that its caused by man and that regulation by the state can fix it, will you accept that regulation is legitimate?

[P4man]

In 1972 the international people and groups behind all the global scares claimed global cooling and if we didnt act we would be extinct. No one believed them and we are fine.

Not this BS again, please. Go read what was actually said in authoritative scientific publications, rather than misrepresentations in a popular dentist "science" magazine, and you will find nothing like a scare, nothing about imminent threats or extinctions, but tentative projections about a global long term cooling over 10s of 1000s of years.  From wikipedia:

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[19] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Guess what. They got it exactly right. Go read current IPCC reports, if it werent for human action, all evidence points the world would indeed be cooling slightly now, just like they said in 1972. But human action has reversed this, just like they predicted back in 1972. Shocking huh?

Sames goes for every claim of "end of the world" and "extinction" thats based on bastardized "science". Science which any scientists detracting from the "official consensus" is deleted, marginalized, fired, or murdered in the name of the agenda.

You clearly havent got a basic understanding of how science works, and the only one blinded (pun intended) by political believes is you. You are no better than Catholics refuting scientific evidence of the earth being round. Welcome to the flat earth society.

What I dont like is the stealing of our rights, freedoms, and wealth in the process in the same of "saving the world" that decreases the quality of life and severely limits peoples ability to live well and survive NOW.

In your political views, do the rights, freedoms, health and wealth of your children and grandchildren factor in? Or is it okay to laden them with debt, a poisoned planet and depleted resources?

[Bind]

In 1972 the international people and groups behind all the global scares claimed global cooling and if we didnt act we would be extinct. No one believed them and we are fine.

Not this BS again, please. Go read what was actually said in authoritative scientific publications, rather than misrepresentations in a popular dentist "science" magazine, and you will find nothing like a scare, nothing about imminent threats or extinctions, but tentative projections about a global long term cooling over 10s of 1000s of years.  From wikipedia:

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[19] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Guess what. They got it exactly right. Go read current IPCC reports, if it werent for human action, all evidence points the world would indeed be cooling now, just like they said in 1972. But human action has reversed this, just like they predicted back in 1972. Shocking huh?

Sames goes for every claim of "end of the world" and "extinction" thats based on bastardized "science". Science which any scientists detracting from the "official consensus" is deleted, marginalized, fired, or murdered in the name of the agenda.

You clearly havent got a basic understanding of how science works, and the only one blinded (pun intended) by political believes is you. You are no better than Catholics refuting scientific evidence of the earth being round. Welcome to the flat earth society.

What I dont like is the stealing of our rights, freedoms, and wealth in the process in the same of "saving the world" that decreases the quality of life and severely limits peoples ability to live well and survive NOW.

In your political views, do the rights, freedoms, health and wealth of your children and grandchildren factor in? Or is it okay to laden them with debt, a poisoned planet and depleted resources?

So, after billions of years of a growing and changing earth, you are telling me that because of humans, the earth is teetering on a razors edge between global cooling and global warming that can only remain sustained and habitable by the intentional actions of humans to combat the heating and cooling with world-wide regulation and control efforts, with extinction of all life as the outcome if we dont give up sovereignty, freedom, liberty, our rights, and wealth to the ruling class, whos only objective is to "save us", while having all the power and control over us, our land, and our resources ??

You really honestly and truly believe that ?

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief and it is taking everything within me to refrain from posting abusive and defamatory epithets in response to your ludicrous response.

They did a number on you.

[Hawker]

bind - if its proven that global warming is real, that its caused by man and that regulation by the state can fix it, will you accept that regulation is legitimate?

[P4man]

So, after billions of years of a growing and changing earth, you are telling me that because of humans, the earth is teetering on a razors edge between global cooling and global warming that can only remain sustained and habitable by the intentional actions of humans to combat the heating and cooling with world-wide regulation and control efforts, with extinction of all life as the outcome if we dont give up sovereignty, freedom, liberty, our rights, and wealth to the ruling class, whos only objective is to "save us", while having all the power and control over us, our land, and our resources ??

Where did you read any of that?
BTW, who made you believe the earth is billions of years old?

[Bind]

bind - if its proven that global warming is real, that its caused by man and that regulation by the state can fix it, will you accept that regulation is legitimate?

Its a hypothetical. I have no idea for certain how I will react if presented with undeniable evidence that our world will end if we dont do something. Most likely, I would do what I thought was the most responsible and best without international entities bent on world domination, control, and power having a gun at my back and stealing my freedom, sovereignty, rights, and wealth, stating, "these measures are the only possible solution". There is no undeniable evidence though. In fact, its going the other way with more and more professionals and scientists advertising the fraud of the IPCC and other entities, plus their attempts to silence and marginalize those other scientists and professionals with an opposing "consensus" counter to that of the bought and paid for through bribery, deceipt, manipulation, peer pressure, indoctrination and "education". Whether they are dupes or adepts is not relevent to me.

It goes against everything within me. I do not believe threats and fear should replace freedom and our rights at the point of a gun, which is what is happening using the fear manipulation, propaganda, and attempts at justification.

If you dont let me have sex with your wife and daughter, the world will end. I have a couple friends who agree, thus our collective scientific consensus. Just like the rulers and priests of old stating the world and humanity will end if we dont bow to their God or them AS Gods, and even wrote their instruction books for it. Its was all so very scientific and they used their knowledge that the little people had no idea existed to prove it. You know, like the basics of science we take for granted today. Eclipses, weather forcasting, use of dangerous resources and elements that caused sickness and illness, disease, and much other knowledge and understanding of space and the world around us.

"... believe in me or do what I say, or I will darken the skies in 3 days, make it rain, cause a draught, release plague upon you, and your world will end... etc..."

Where did you read any of that?

by your posts.

BTW, who made you believe the earth is billions of years old?

scientists who are not infallible. They could be wrong. But then my belief that the earth is billions of years old will do nothing to affect my sovereignty, freedom, rights, or wealth, and I am certainly not forcing you to act on it at the point of a weapon or threat of being caged.

That said, the moon could indeed be made of cheese and fall to the earth at any time. I have no idea, so I best buy that cheese cutter just in case. Its not to increase the political power and wealth of the elite cheese cutter manufacturers spouting fear, manupulation, threats, innuendo, supposition, and conjecture, is it..

semantics.

[Hawker]

p4man - bind's answer means that you are wasting your time with evidence.  He will not accept it.

[P4man]

by your posts.

Your reading skills leave much to be desired then.

BTW, who made you believe the earth is billions of years old?

scientists who are not infallible. They could be wrong. But then my belief that the earth is billions of years old will do nothing to affect my sovereignty, freedom, rights, or wealth, and I am certainly not forcing you to act on it at the point of a weapon or threat of being caged.

So when it suits you, you seem to see no reason to question the scientific consensus, but when you think it would threaten your religion, you refuse to even look in to it. Thats a pretty good definition of irrational, stupid and being blind. A true flat earther.

[Bind]

by your posts.

Your reading skills leave much to be desired then.

BTW, who made you believe the earth is billions of years old?

scientists who are not infallible. They could be wrong. But then my belief that the earth is billions of years old will do nothing to affect my sovereignty, freedom, rights, or wealth, and I am certainly not forcing you to act on it at the point of a weapon or threat of being caged.

So when it suits you, you seem to see no reason to question the scientific consensus, but when you think it would threaten your religion, you refuse to even look in to it. Thats a pretty good definition of irrational, stupid and being blind. A true flat earther.

Please show me a group of scientists, whos numbers are rapidly increasing every day, who disputes the scientific consensus that the earth is billions of years old. Please keep in mind that bible/religion-based "science" does not count.

To insinuate that I disbelieve all science and scientific consensus to fraudulently attempt to prove your side of the debate is, at best, disingenuous, and at most, a blantant fabrication.

... and since its been irrationally mentioned by a few people in a few threads, I believe the earth it an orb (roundish), I believe in Newton's law of universal gravitation, and I believe in Eintein's Theory of Relativity, and quite a few more...

I am not religious. If you want to call freedom, liberty, and preservation of every human beings birth rights as a religion, so be it. I stand proudly guilty.

Lastly, no one, nor any groups, have any right to tell anyone else what to do so long as no one is infringing on the birth rights of another. Same goes for their property rights. Non-universal scientific consensus, supposition, and conjecture are not forms of nor proof of infringement.

To believe otherwise, for any reason, is to believe others have the supreme right to rule over you and your property, thus you are a slave... plain and simple servitude where you allow them to use thesis, antithesis, and synthesis psychology to rule and control you, your wealth, and your property. Where you are actually begging to be enslaved and ruled over. If thats your wish, go for it. However people like me will fight to the death against it, as oh so many have done in our history to give us the few freedoms we do still have to enjoy. I can take care of all myself and my families needs, act responsibly, and dont need anyone else doing it for me in the name of "saving the planet", which is pure bullshit.

[P4man]

Being unable to distinguish between politics and science and shrugging off overwhelming scientific evidence, not on the basis of science or rational thought,  but only because its conclusions appear to threaten your deep convictions, puts them squarely in the religious corner, along with creationism and a 4000 year old earth flat earth orbited by the sun.

There is no point in arguing with such people, as no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince someone who will gladly sacrifice science and reason itself on its religious altar.

[bb113]

What the IPCC actually says about global cooling:

Not all theories or early results are verifi ed by later analysis.
In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling
appeared in the popular press, primarily motivated by analyses
indicating that Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperatures had
decreased during the previous three decades (e.g., Gwynne,
1975). In the peer-reviewed literature, a paper by Bryson
and Dittberner (1976) reported that increases in carbon
dioxide (CO2) should be associated with a decrease in global
temperatures. When challenged by Woronko (1977), Bryson and
Dittberner (1977) explained that the cooling projected by their
model was due to aerosols (small particles in the atmosphere)
produced by the same combustion that caused the increase in
CO2. However, because aerosols remain in the atmosphere only
a short time compared to CO2, the results were not applicable
for long-term climate change projections. This example of a
prediction of global cooling is a classic illustration of the selfcorrecting
nature of Earth science. The scientists involved were
reputable researchers who followed the accepted paradigm of
publishing in scientifi c journals, submitting their methods and
results to the scrutiny of their peers (although the peer-review
did not catch this problem), and responding to legitimate
criticism.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (page 98)


So, at the time there was evidence for global cooling due to aerosols and the media played this up like the alarmists they are. This did not play out, additional info was considered to explain why it didn't play out, and so the theory is now dead.

[bb113]

And for all of you claiming you are posting "scientific evidence"... Wikipedia quotes and unreferenced pictures do not constitute scientific evidence. It is clear to me that you are all using consensus as a proxy for evidence. This is OK as long as you realize what you are doing. As soon as you start confusing the two, you are being bad bad bad.

[bb113]

Seriously, Al Gore bought a house on the coast so AGW must be false. The oil companies are funding propaganda campaigns so therefore AGW must be true. I see this kind of reasoning on both sides (showing you how worthless it is). It makes me laugh but then I think how scary it is that people are still just arguing about which elders to trust.

[Hawker]

And for all of you claiming you are posting "scientific evidence"... Wikipedia quotes and unreferenced pictures do not constitute scientific evidence. It is clear to me that you are all using consensus as a proxy for evidence. This is OK as long as you realize what you are doing. As soon as you start confusing the two, you are being bad bad bad.

Do you ever feel like its watching a religious debate?  Both sides go on and on forever and neither will ever listen to the other.

[bb113]

I used to have roomate for a bit who believed in god (I'm agnostic). Every other night we would get drunk and have the same debate. This went on for 2 months and in the end neither of us had been convinced of anything. I guess it was like rhetoric practice or something.

[P4man]

What the IPCC actually says about global cooling:

Not all theories or early results are verifi ed by later analysis.
In the mid-1970s, several articles about possible global cooling
appeared in the popular press,

Duh!
I quoted from the national science board and explicitly said if you look at authoritative scientific publications of the time, and not popular press articles.

Fact is, in so far there was a scientific consensus back in 1972, it was most definitely not diametrically opposed to the current one as blind was trying to say.  If anything they seem in complete agreement.

So, at the time there was evidence for global cooling due to aerosols and the media played this up like the alarmists they are. This did not play out, additional info was considered to explain why it didn't play out, and so the theory is now dead.

The theory is not dead; afaik the IPCC reports still mention anthropogenic aerosols as a major source of negative forcing.

[bb113]

Here is a good figure:


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf (pg 136)
Captcha for uploading image=Carbon-copy

I looks like they left out negative "natural forcings" though.

So what is radiative forcing:

"Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in Watts per square meter (W/m2)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Not sure if I really get it yet.

[Schleicher]

I looks like they left out negative "natural forcings" though.

Looks like they assume that effects from other natural processes are averaging out over the years.

[Bind]

Being unable to distinguish between politics and science and shrugging off overwhelming scientific evidence, not on the basis of science or rational thought,  but only because its conclusions appear to threaten your deep convictions, puts them squarely in the religious corner, along with creationism and a 4000 year old earth flat earth orbited by the sun.

There is no point in arguing with such people, as no amount of scientific evidence will ever convince someone who will gladly sacrifice science and reason itself on its religious altar.

Right back at ya.

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

Are you a religious freak adhering to the global warming scam like a christian clutching the Word of God despite the lack of overwhelming scientific evidence it exists ?

There is no point in arguing with such people, as no lack of scientific evidence will ever convince someone who will gladly sacrifice a lack of science and reason itself on its religious altar.


 

Fact is, in so far there was a scientific consensus back in 1972, it was most definitely not diametrically opposed to the current one as blind was trying to say.  If anything they seem in complete agreement.

I agree the faked man made global cooling and warming hoaxes are identical, but not in the way you might think.

[P4man]

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

What thousands of professionals would that be?
Dentists dont count.

Here, FYI:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i )
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii ) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

I dare say you would find more scientists in support of creationism than disagreeing with AGW.

[bb113]

I looks like they left out negative "natural forcings" though.

Looks like they assume that effects from other natural processes are averaging out over the years.

Here is the caption:

FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these
radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or
natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the
industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause signifi cant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour,
surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any signifi cance between 1750 and
2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a
cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective
value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.)

So you may be right, I just gotta read more.

I always thought this was a ridiculous logo:



But maybe they're right. We should just paint the world white, dye the seas, increase surface albedo... I wonder if anyone has looked at how using solar panels at a huge scale would affect albedo. It would have to be a positive forcing right?

[Bind]

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

What thousands of professionals would that be?
Dentists dont count.

I will take your answer as a "yes" to the question of whether or not its your "religion".

You simply can not deny many scientists disagree with the man made global cooling and warming hoaxes.

You disagree with these professionals and scientists just like I disagree with the ones aligning themselves with the globalist agenda. My agenda is quite clear ... preservation of the nation state, freedom, liberty, sovereignty, and the money we work hard to make that used to allow us a good quality of life.

Diametrically opposed to that is the agenda of those you stand religiously behind and defend, who are hell bent on taking away from you; your; nation state, freedom, liberty, sovereignty, and the money you work hard to make thats used to allow you a good quality of life.

I am sorry but you can not seriosuly expect me to write up a list of thousands of professionals and scientists disagreeing with man made global warming and/or cooling. You are simply grasping at straws. Go google if you truly dispute it. But we both know you dont dispute their existance.

I dare say you would find more scientists in support of creationism than disagreeing with AGW.

I have no doubt those with an agenda say there are more scientist who think there is global warming and/or cooling than not, but is it more about the numbers of scientists than whether or not they are accurate ?

If I have the money, power, influence, and/or prestige to be awarded enough to convince many scientists of something, does that make it true ?  

Hell alot of scientists have admitted they simply dont know but have erred on the side of caution and influence from/or others "work". IMO they should not be taken seriously, while many more disagree with it entirely.

Imagine you are a scientist with a family and a career to look after.....

What if your funding would evaporate if you "didnt get on board" ?

What if you were warned no to "rock the boat"?

What if you were threatened directly with marginalization, career ruination, removal, dismissal, forced retirement, disollution of your position, or loss of seniority ?

See this science thing is strange. Usually consensus is easily and quickly formed based on experimentation, observation and evidence. I have heard of nothing that has split the scientific community apart more than global cooling/warming hoax, except maybe for a bit the planet, now celestial body, Pluto.

That tells me everything I need to know.

[bb113]

Considering the thousands of professionals and scientist refuting the global warming "consensus", would that not mean the same for you ?

What thousands of professionals would that be?
Dentists dont count.

Here, FYI:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i )
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii ) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

I dare say you would find more scientists in support of creationism than disagreeing with AGW.

Are you guys considering the difference between AGW and catastrophic AGW?

Materials and Methods
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods). We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership.

...

To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers.

...

Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here. However, citation analysis research suggests that the potential of these patterns to influence results is likely to decline as sample size of researchers, possible cliques, and papers analyzed for citations considered increases (22, 25–28).

Tables don't show up the same way they preview....

[bb113]

The PI has had an interesting career. He was one of the Global Cooling researchers back in the 70's and died a couple of months after that paper was published:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

[P4man]

You simply can not deny many scientists disagree with the man made global cooling and warming hoaxes.

Actually I do.  You didnt say many, you said thousands. so, who are those "thousands" of respectable climate scientists that are not thinly disguised oil lobbyists with a PhD in econometrics ? You said it, you must have a source?

Have you even seen the poll I linked? Or is the national academy of sciences is perhaps not a credible source of information?

You disagree with these professionals and scientists just like I disagree with the ones aligning themselves with the globalist agenda.

Its completely different for a host of reasons, but let me reiterate just the most important one: you do not disagree with a scientific consensus because you actually believe the science is wrong,  basing that on facts or reason, but because you desperately WANT the science to be wrong because you dont know how to fit it in your political agenda if it is indeed right.  Thats the key difference between you and me. You "think" like a religious extremist who's faced with carbon dating evidence. The evidence be damned, it cant be right. It has to be wrong!

My agenda is quite clear ...

Yes, and its clearly not finding truth. Its covering up scientific evidence.

If I have the money, power, influence, and/or prestige to be awarded enough to convince many scientists of something, does that make it true ?  

So you are saying its as likely 97% of all climate scientists are bribed by.. who exactly? and they have been bribed for decades now with no one speaking up, rather than the possibility big oil "convinced" 1 or 2% of the less authoritative scientists to argue for their case?  Really? What happened when science began uncovering evidence of smoking causing cancer?

Hell alot of scientists have admitted they simply dont know but have erred on the side of caution and influence from/or others "work".

I call bullshit on this too. Prove me wrong, show me your source.

I have heard of nothing that has split the scientific community apart more than global cooling/warming hoax,

Funny, because in reality there are precious few research area's were the scientific consensus is this strong. Of course, thats only if you actually listen to scientists and not get your information from some bonehead fake moon landing conspiracy websites where I suppose you get yours. Let me guess: Alex Jones?

That tells me everything I need to know.

You mean, it gives you the excuse to ignore the facts.

[bb113]

P4 man please read my post that included the actual charts and part of the methods section from the study your abstract was from. It was not a poll.

[P4man]

P4 man please read my post that included the actual charts and part of the methods section from the study your abstract was from. It was not a poll.

I did read it and nothing you bolded refutes their conclusion. How could it? You bolded statements in their very report. So now you want to argue the statistical methods used by the national academy of science now to somehow proof 97-98% is what, 50%?

For crying out loud, get real.

[bb113]

First of all you just claimed it was a poll. That is incorrect. This has nothing to do with statistics. Stop getting hysterical.

edit: Please look at the charts and read the methods. Try to think of alternative interpretations of the data.

[bb113]

Here is the entire paper(only 3 pages):
http://www.mediafire.com/?74pd5d74l3uuo08

[P4man]

Do you have any idea how unearthly desperate you sound, trying to come up with "alternative interpretations"  to refute the NAS' conclusions while using the very same NAS data from the very same report? What on earth do you expect to achieve?

Honestly, there is a limit to how much nonsense I can cope with.

How I wish there was an unsubscribe button, cause Im done here.

[bb113]

You think that a single paper published in PNAS represents the views of the NAS??? There is more misunderstanding here than I thought.

[bb113]

Do you have any idea how unearthly desperate you sound, trying to come up with "alternative interpretations"  to refute the NAS' conclusions while using the very same NAS data from the very same report? What on earth do you expect to achieve?

Honestly, there is a limit to how much nonsense I can cope with.

Science isn't magic, anyone can do it under the right circumstances.

Here is how science works *in general:
1) Scientist #1 reads peer-reviewed literature
2) Scientist #1 comes up with an idea based on this literature
3) Scientist #1 uses a small amount of funds they have to generate preliminary evidence. Thus indicating their idea has merit, and they are capable of performing the experiment.
4) Scientist #1 writes up a grant proposal and submits it to funding agencies
5) Other scientists (usually 2-4) review this proposal (along with many others) and score it based on funding agency guidelines and their subjective criteria
6) Grants with the best scores get funded with large amount of money.
7) Scientist #1 uses grant money to perform larger scale experiment
8) The data generated by the larger scale experiment is analyzed and interpreted by scientist #1
9) Scientist #1 writes a report describing how the data was analyzed, what previous publications say about related data, and his/her interpretations of the results in light of other work and general knowledge about the world.
10) This report is submitted to various peer reviewed journals
11) Other scientists (usually 2-4) review this report (along with many others) and critique it according to journal guidelines and subjective criteria.
12) Scientist #1's report meets the subjective criteria of the reviewers and is published
13) Scientist #2 reads this report (along with many others)
14) Scientist #2 comes up with a new idea based on the now updated literature. This can be either an alternative to scientist #1's conclusions or supporting them.

....Cycle repeats, etc.

So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
2) Access to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)

Edit= I have emphasized the steps most vulnerable to political contamination with italics.

[FirstAscent]

So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
2) Access to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)

I fail to see your point.

Those who disagree with AGW do not lack 1, 2, 3 or 4. Big Oil sees to that. Unfortunately for them, they often lack credibility, which is why journal reviewers probably don't favor them. Really, try not to be so obtuse. Quite simply, the money is there in massive quantities to support science against AGW. The problem is, there just isn't good science against AGW. Ever thought of that? If there was indeed good science against AGW, then why would individuals find the need to produce quack documents such as the Oregon Petition?

[Bind]

Look up the funding sources and their history.

[FirstAscent]

Look up the funding sources and their history.

I've already explained this here in this thread quite clearly. I'm surprised that you think your statement actually explains anything.

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

[bb113]

So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
2) Access to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)

I fail to see your point.

Those who disagree with AGW do not lack 1, 2, 3 or 4. Big Oil sees to that. Unfortunately for them, they often lack credibility, which is why journal reviewers probably don't favor them. Really, try not to be so obtuse. Quite simply, the money is there in massive quantities to support science against AGW. The problem is, there just isn't good science against AGW. Ever thought of that? If there was indeed good science against AGW, then why would individuals find the need to produce quack documents such as the Oregon Petition?

I was replying to P4man who seemed to think that questioning peer-reviewed literature was nonsense.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I would like to demonstrate this argument in the form of a video.

http://youtu.be/PGuD9ru27d0?t=36m13s

[FirstAscent]

Every time we get one of these climate change threads, I ask for the deniers to post some credible science against AGW, and it never materializes.

Furthermore, there's a definite split, and it goes like this:

1. Those who use their political beliefs to guide what scientific results they're looking for.

2. Those who use the results of science to guide their political beliefs.

If you're in camp #1, you've got problems.

[bb113]

What is your definition of AGW?

1) That the earth has warmed since 1900.
2) That the earth has warmed since 1990 due to CO2 emissions.
3) That the earth will continue to warm.
4) That the earth will continue to warm until catastrophic events occur.

[FirstAscent]

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

I think your problem is you don't know enough about ecosystems. You might want to learn about ecology, trophic cascades, natural capital, and other topics within that framework. Let me know if I can recommend any reading material to you that will serve as a both a primer and catalyst.

[bb113]

Ok, well I believe your definition is different from that of most scientists. I think you have mixed up the definition with a few of the possible outcomes. Anyway, in doing this you added in a couple new terms we need to define. My next question was going to be:

What is your definition of credible?

Also:
What is your definition of "Serious Damage"?
What is your definition of "Huge Economic Damage"?

Once you define these, I will try to find credible science that is "against" AGW.

Actually can you also define "against"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want any disagreement once I do this.

[FirstAscent]

Ok, well I believe your definition is different from that of most scientists.

Well, it isn't.

What is your definition of credible?

Also:
What is your definition of "Serious Damage"?
What is your definition of "Huge Economic Damage"?

Once you define these, I will try to find credible science that is "against" AGW.

Actually can you also define "against"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want any disagreement once I do this.

No, I won't define "against". You may use an online dictionary. As for the other terms, if you had greater information to back up whatever it is you believe, then you wouldn't resort to such parsing. And no, I won't define the term "greater" for you as used in the last sentence. 

[FirstAscent]

Ok, well I believe your definition is different from that of most scientists. I think you have mixed up the definition with a few of the possible outcomes. Anyway, in doing this you added in a couple new terms we need to define. My next question was going to be:

What is your definition of credible?

Also:
What is your definition of "Serious Damage"?
What is your definition of "Huge Economic Damage"?

Once you define these, I will try to find credible science that is "against" AGW.

Actually can you also define "against"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want any disagreement once I do this.

To demonstrate how pointless and annoying your line of attack is:

Please define what "differrent" means in your first sentence above. What do you mean by "mixed up" in the second sentence above.

Also, in the first sentence above, you used the term 'believe'. How do feel a belief system taints one's line of thinking?

[bb113]

Ok, since for whatever reason you don't want to cooperate, I will use my own definitions. I predict we will observe that you move the goal posts though.

Most Credible= IPCC report
Semi-Credible= Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
Not-Credible= everything else

Against is actually kind of tough. Lets say that,

"Against AGW"= the discussion includes a statement of doubt that

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

I don't think we are ready to talk about "Serious damage" and "huge economic damage". That belongs more in the discussion about the cost-benefit of do nothing, mitigate, or adapt. Instead, I will use a rise of 2-4 K or more from current temperatures in the next two hundred years as a proxy for damage. This seems to be the temperature change consistently associated with big problems by the IPCC. Correct me if I'm wrong here...

[FirstAscent]

Instead, I will use a rise of 2-4 K or more from current temperatures in the next two hundred years as a proxy for damage.

Do as you wish. A solid summary of your views and logic behind them would be helpful, because right now they're not so clear.

[bb113]

Do as you wish. A solid summary of your views and logic behind them would be helpful, because right now they're not so clear.

My point is to find out if there is consensus about this:

Instead, I will use a rise of 2-4 K or more from current temperatures in the next two hundred years as a proxy for damage.

As of right now I don't think so. A huge factor (clouds) is basically an unknown, and they have only a short timeframe for which there is good data. But I am not that well read on this topic yet, so maybe there is some trick. We will find out.

[FirstAscent]

It sounds to me like you're having a very difficult time in determining the difference between the existence of a scientific consensus and your own personal opinion about climate change. The scientific consensus on the subject does not care about your own personal views. It is a large set of data and participants that operates independently of your views.

Let me help you out. Reread everything I posted in this thread and the relevant links, and then you'll understand that the information presented to you serves two purposes:

1. To demonstrate that there is a scientific consensus. Read this: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full . It is not difficult to determine this.  Keep in mind that a scientific consensus on the subject is not the same as your own interpretation of the scientific data.

2. Your own personal views are less interesting than what is said in the scientific literature.

Carry on.

[bb113]

A scientific consensus on what? Not your definition of AGW. What that article claims is in agreement with what I said earlier. Read your own link.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "net temperature"...
Anyway there are multiple lines of evidence the temperature has been rising the last 100 years (about 0.6 K so far). The most plausible explanation for this rise is anthropomorphic CO2. While there is no historical evidence for increased atmospheric CO2 forcing a temperature rise, over the last 100 years there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature. In addition, there are multiple lines of supporting evidence that CO2 is the cause.

I am not confused, rather I see two aspects to this as a scientist but non-expert:

1) What exactly is there consensus on?
- This is what I am looking for answers to right now.
2) What are the sources of uncertainty, and are these scientists properly assessing and quantifying all sources of uncertainty?
- This is where most science goes awry. Ascertaining this requires extensive reading and probably consulting/questioning of the experts once I have some understanding of the models (I expect this will take a lot of time).

[bb113]

Actually I would say that achieving #2 may be impossible for someone not actually doing the work themselves. However, usually, (assuming limited contamination of the field with politics, and there is always at least some since science is a human endeavor) a reasonable estimate of this can be gathered by consulting with enough experts.

edit: To better explain my schema. "Enough experts" would have to include people working on this throughout the scientific hierarchy: Lab techs, grad students, new PIs, PIs with tenure, and everything in between. Ideally.

[bb113]

2. Your own personal views are less interesting than what is said in the scientific literature.

And I agree. Others should view my personal opinion as less interesting than whats in the literature. On the other hand, people should take the view of those who try to understand what is actually said in the lit as more interesting than those who only have a limited understanding and use consensus as a proxy. I am still unsure which group you fall into. This is not due to any lack of prodding by me, instead it is due to your reticence.

[bb113]

Apparently answering #1 will be more difficult than I thought:

There is considerable confidence that
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs)
provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate
change, particularly at continental and larger scales.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf (pg 591)

Confidence Terminology    Degree of confidence in being correct    
Very high confidence            At least 9 out of 10 chance    
High confidence                    About 8 out of 10 chance    
Medium confidence            About 5 out of 10 chance    
Low confidence                    About 2 out of 10 chance    
Very low confidence            Less than 1 out of 10 chance    

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (pg 120)

[Bind]

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

I have no political beliefs in this debate other than the belief that this debate is being used by others for an insidious agenda that includes, but certainly is not limited to, politics.

I believe in freedom.

To be free you can not infringe on another in excersising your own rights.

You, on the other hand, wish to enslave people and steal their wealth and property, or at a very minimum you agree with it.

Does not matter the reasons or the justifications handed to us. Its infringement... enslavement. I do not believe any of the threats of human extinction we have been inundated with over the last century are real or credible, and even if I did, that does not change the fact that it moves us from freedom into enslavement of the citizens and shackles them with oppressive debt. It's no different than a pharoh or king hundreds to thousands of years ago, who, ironically enough, are the very bloodlines of the elites behind this insidious agenda today. To me, its simply about trying to control, financially rape, and enslave us.

The rest of the discussion is simply bastardized scientific and philosophical hogwash attemtping to somehow justify the move from freedom back to enslavement of the masses.

[Hawker]

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

I have no political beliefs in this debate other than the belief that this debate is being used by others for an insidious agenda that includes, but certainly is not limited to, politics.

I believe in freedom.

To be free you can not infringe on another in excersising your own rights.

You, on the other hand, wish to enslave people and steal their wealth and property, or at a very minimum you agree with it.

Does not matter the reasons or the justifications handed to us. Its infringement... enslavement. I do not believe any of the threats of human extinction we have been inundated with over the last century are real or credible, and even if I did, that does not change the fact that it moves us from freedom into enslavement of the citizens and shackles them with oppressive debt. It's no different than a pharoh or king hundreds to thousands of years ago, who, ironically enough, are the very bloodlines of the elites behind this insidious agenda today. To me, its simply about trying to control, financially rape, and enslave us.

The rest of the discussion is simply bastardized scientific and philosophical hogwash attemtping to somehow justify the move from freedom back to enslavement of the masses.

Moving into David Icke and lizard country...you do know that there is no way back to sanity when you get into that stuff.  You say you have a family.  For their sake, stop and re-connect with reality.  If the Internet is giving you strange ideas, treat it as a dangerous hallucinogen and stay off it.

[Bind]

Moving into David Icke and lizard country...you do know that there is no way back to sanity when you get into that stuff.  You say you have a family.  For their sake, stop and re-connect with reality.  If the Internet is giving you strange ideas, treat it as a dangerous hallucinogen and stay off it.

Please debate the message, not ad-hominem attacks against the messenger.

I dont believe David Ickes lizard theory, but I do believe he, like most other history and conspiracy researchers, get a lot right and a lot wrong, which is why its so important to do your own research. Read, watch, and listen to everyone and everything, believe nothing until you can prove it through your own research.

If you deny the elite ruling classes of today tracing their lineage back to ancient ruling classes, you have not done much research on the subject. They admit it and are proud of it. They even married within their own immediate families to preserve their wealth, then later only married families of other ruling classes to expand their land, areas of influence, and keep a firm hold on their wealth. Hell why do you think they have their buildings and property adorned with historic and ancient obilisks, stones, hieroglyphics, and statues? Let alone the symbology of their adornments, clothing, buildings, artwork, family shields, etc. Some even state they trace their historical beliefs and relation back to pre-biblical and biblical figures. Others, known as luciferians, trace it back beyond that, who believe knowledge is their God, and that they have the supreme right to rule and can become their own God through knowledge. Where do you think all that lineage went to? Just disappeared? You dont think these elite ruling classes teach their offspring from birth that they are better than everyone else, have the supreme right to rule and control the peasants? I guess class warfare is a fallacy too. If not, do you know where it actually came from?

Their beliefs go all the way back to the dawn of Man and the first "technology" that existed. Fire. Thats why fire is one of the prime symbols used in government and business today. Imagine being the first person who could manipulate and create fire. The first priests, the first rulers, the first scientists. They were God-like to the masses. You see, rulers, priests, and scientists always controlled the masses through fear and awe proved by a knowledge they knew but the masses did not. This is why government always has technology we dont know about until many many decades after the fact. They would demand the masses pay homage, sacrifice, and yes some form of physical contribution or donation, what we know today to be taxes, else they would darken the Sun on a specific date, cause sickness or plague, make it rain, cause a drought, threaten the end of the world using a knowledge unknown to the masses as supposed "proof". The peasants were you and me. Dumb citizens enslaved, scratching and grinding away an existance, paying taxes to make the rich richer so they didnt have to work. They lived then off our backs, blood, sweat, and tears, just how todays elite live off our back, blood, sweat, and tears. Only today we know more, so their psychology and technology have improved dramatically. Are we any less controlled and enslave though?

The use of occult (clandestine, hidden, secret) knowledge and technology has been around since there was the first ruler, scientist, and priest, and they often worked together to enslave and control the masses through psychology, fear, then pure force when the former did not work. Of course, the people almost always eventually found them out and revolted against such tyranny and oppression as the masses intellect and knowledge grew.

Your beliefs and my beliefs simply do not matter. What matters are the beliefs of people who can affect you, your property, your wealth, and your very life. Much like its the beliefs of they guy walking down the street behind you or lurking in an alleyway is what matters, because when he decides to infringe upon you with a weapon, your beliefs become completely irrelevent.

I recommend you start doing some in-depth research as to the true history of the world. I was once like you. I was right in line with the propaganda, indoctrination, and manipulation of our controllers. I though those conspiracy theorists were nutbags, until I started seeing to many coincidences, released government documents through FOIA requests, and started reading their own words. I dont think the history really matters today, other than a catalyst to jump that fence into believing there really are elites in the world screwing you at every turn. After you can see and believe that, the rest falls into place and allows you to move on to trying to educate others and figure out a solution.

What DOES matter is what they are doing to us to steal our wealth, enslave us, control us, oppress us, and take our sovereignty and freedom from us, all in the name of the latest fear they need us to believe in to attempt to justify it all.

It's about freedom. Nothing else.

In order to be free we must let others be free.

Now, if you do not want to be free, and advocate our enslavement, you are the enemy of freedom and freedom seeking people, and should be prepared to do battle with them. Are you prepared to fight and die for your entitlements and benefits against those fighting for their freedom and sovereignty, and against our enslavement ?

Pick a side ... it's coming ... I suggest choosing freedom.

[Hawker]

The problem with debating the topic with someone deranged is that no matter what you say, the deranged guy is on his own agenda and you don't really make progress.  I have no interest in ad hominem arguments.  But there is no ruling class descended from the Pharaohs, not even in Egypt.  If you believe that, then facts are irrelevant to you and I can't see how a rational discussion with you is possible.   Sorry.

[FirstAscent]

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

I have no political beliefs in this debate other than the belief that this debate is being used by others for an insidious agenda that includes, but certainly is not limited to, politics.

I believe in freedom.

To be free you can not infringe on another in excersising your own rights.

You, on the other hand, wish to enslave people and steal their wealth and property, or at a very minimum you agree with it.

Does not matter the reasons or the justifications handed to us. Its infringement... enslavement. I do not believe any of the threats of human extinction we have been inundated with over the last century are real or credible, and even if I did, that does not change the fact that it moves us from freedom into enslavement of the citizens and shackles them with oppressive debt. It's no different than a pharoh or king hundreds to thousands of years ago, who, ironically enough, are the very bloodlines of the elites behind this insidious agenda today. To me, its simply about trying to control, financially rape, and enslave us.

The rest of the discussion is simply bastardized scientific and philosophical hogwash attemtping to somehow justify the move from freedom back to enslavement of the masses.

For someone who vehemently denies that he has no political beliefs tied to the science of climate change in the first sentence of the above  post, that's one amazing piece of wordage to write.

[FirstAscent]

Actually I would say that achieving #2 may be impossible for someone not actually doing the work themselves. However, usually, (assuming limited contamination of the field with politics, and there is always at least some since science is a human endeavor) a reasonable estimate of this can be gathered by consulting with enough experts.

edit: To better explain my schema. "Enough experts" would have to include people working on this throughout the scientific hierarchy: Lab techs, grad students, new PIs, PIs with tenure, and everything in between. Ideally.

I see. And I suppose Richard Lindzen is the first expert you've gravitated towards. Funny. I can't take your quest seriously.

[FirstAscent]

What DOES matter is what they are doing to us to steal our wealth, enslave us, control us, oppress us, and take our sovereignty and freedom from us, all in the name of the latest fear they need us to believe in to attempt to justify it all.

I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a way to tell this to scientists taking ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, and so forth. Search for their email addresses or whatever.

[Hawker]

What DOES matter is what they are doing to us to steal our wealth, enslave us, control us, oppress us, and take our sovereignty and freedom from us, all in the name of the latest fear they need us to believe in to attempt to justify it all.

I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a way to tell this to scientists taking ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, and so forth. Search for their email addresses or whatever.

Um, he doesn't need to search email address.  Bind believes they are descended from Pharaohs so all he needs to do is look up their family tree.

[bb113]

I see. And I suppose Richard Lindzen is the first expert you've gravitated towards. Funny. I can't take your quest seriously.

This is a strawman you have chosen to create rather than try to comprehend what I am doing. Anyway...

I am having trouble finding a quote that authoritatively sums up the IPCC's confidence in their scenarios, models, etc. It looks like a few of the scenarios predict Temp rises could plateau under 2 k (likely= +/- 1 stdev):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf (pg 591) Confidence Terminology    Degree of confidence in being correct     Very high confidence            At least 9 out of 10 chance     High confidence                    About 8 out of 10 chance     Medium confidence            About 5 out of 10 chance     Low confidence                    About 2 out of 10 chance     Very low confidence            Less than 1 out of 10 chance     http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (pg 120) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (pg 13)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (pg 14)

[bb113]

So,

1) Find out if the IPCC has estimated the probability of each of the various scenarios occurring.
2) Find out what "considerable confidence" means (since this term is not defined in their chart)

Then, for each scenario we must multiply:
Pr(scenario) X Pr(warming > 2K) X Pr(Models are realistic)

[FirstAscent]

I am having trouble finding a quote that authoritatively sums up the IPCC's confidence in their scenarios, models, etc.

You've spent a great deal of effort in parsing words, both in the IPCC's literature, and mine. Sadly, those are the actions of one who can't accept an argument at face value, and instead finds the need to reinterpret the meaning of a certain word here and there until they feel they have discovered some significant half hidden factoid that helps to bolster what they really want the facts to say.

[FirstAscent]

So,

1) Find out if the IPCC has estimated the probability of each of the various scenarios occurring.
2) Find out what "considerable confidence" means (since this term is not defined in their chart)

Then, for each scenario we must multiply:
Pr(scenario) X Pr(warming > 2K) X Pr(Models are realistic)

I'm curious. Do you believe the IPCC is controlled by descendants of the Pharaohs?

[bb113]

So I take it you are going to ignore that there appears to be no consensus regarding whether temps will rise over 2 K by 2099. If we use the 2 K rise as a proxy for "damaging", this disagrees with your statement that there is consensus that:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

You are back to your rigid, stereotyped arguments. Please address my posts, and adapt your argument to your audience.

[Bind]

Um, he doesn't need to search email address.  Bind believes they are descended from Pharaohs so all he needs to do is look up their family tree.

I'm curious. Do you believe the IPCC is controlled by descendants of the Pharaohs?

Kings, Tribesmen, Rulers, Leaders, and Pharohs, etc.

The bloodlines did not anymore end than yours will end with your passing.

Do/did/will you hand down culture, heritage, and knowledge to your sons and daughters ?

[bb113]

So, FirstAscent, do you recognize that there is a difference between this statement:

“The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/content/306/5702/1686.full

And your statement:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

[FirstAscent]

So I take it you are going to ignore that there appears to be no consensus regarding whether temps will rise over 2 K by 2099. If we use the 2 K rise as a proxy for "damaging", this disagrees with your statement that there is consensus that:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

You are back to your rigid, stereotyped arguments. Please address my posts, and adapt your argument to your audience.

I'm sorry, but I missed where anyone but you declared a 2k rise by 2099 being a proxy for damage.

[FirstAscent]

So, FirstAscent, do you recognize that there is a difference between this statement:

“The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/content/306/5702/1686.full

And your statement:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

Sadly, (again due to your parsing), you're confusing a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes with a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken.

[bb113]

So, FirstAscent, do you recognize that there is a difference between this statement:

“The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue”

http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu/content/306/5702/1686.full

And your statement:

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

Sadly, (again due to your parsing), you're confusing a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes with a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken.

Is it due to my "parsing"? Or because such a statement from the IPCC does not exist? I got the IPCC statement from your link:

It sounds to me like you're having a very difficult time in determining the difference between the existence of a scientific consensus and your own personal opinion about climate change. The scientific consensus on the subject does not care about your own personal views. It is a large set of data and participants that operates independently of your views.

Let me help you out. Reread everything I posted in this thread and the relevant links, and then you'll understand that the information presented to you serves two purposes:

1. To demonstrate that there is a scientific consensus. Read this: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full . It is not difficult to determine this.  Keep in mind that a scientific consensus on the subject is not the same as your own interpretation of the scientific data.

2. Your own personal views are less interesting than what is said in the scientific literature.

Carry on.

Are you saying you made that post knowing it was with reference to "a scientific consensus summarized by the IPCC regarding past climate trends and causes", which is obviously different from "a scientific consensus on what will potentially occur if counter measures are not taken." YES THIS IS MY POINT!!!. You are getting it.

I am confused though, why would you post that when I have said repeatedly that I agree there is consensus that humans have warmed the earth through CO2 emissions?

[bb113]

So to recap...

According to the experts:

1) There is "incontrovertible evidence" the earth has warmed since 1900
2) There is scientific consensus that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (primarily CO2) have contributed to this warming.
3) There is level of confidence in future predictions of how much warming will occur.
4) There is level of confidence in what the various consequences of warming will be.

I can't find a straight up IPCC quote regarding the last two, but it appears that warming may plateau at around 2 K for at least some of the scenarios, with values < 2 K well within the error. I saw a table somewhere that had most negative effects predicted to occur only with >2 K rise, unfortunately, I can't find it right now.

[FirstAscent]

Frankly, I'm not getting your point at all. Why you're weaving together two separate things in this thread together is beyond me. I think your only point is that you like to parse words.

You asked me what I thought AGW is. I told you what it is by defining where it will lead. Those ecosystem changes are important, but you don't yet understand that. Later, and to the point of it being tiresome, you kept discussing the need to determine if there was a scientific consensus on climate change. Your path to ascertaining this seemed overly sprinkled with some vague agenda of yours and rather long winded to boot. I simply chose to expedite the process for you by providing a link.

Tell me, is there a scientific consensus on Evolution? Will you conclude that there is not such a scientific consensus because you don't find it explicitly published in an IPCC report?

[bb113]

My point has been that there is no consensus on future projections regarding climate change. Another way of putting this is that there is no consensus that your particular definition of AGW is true. I was not the one obsessed consensus anyway... Now that we agree, we can stop wasting time arguing about that (I agree, it is dumb).

[bb113]

The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is

1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.

I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds

2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.

All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.

At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.

[FirstAscent]

Thank you for the last post. It has made clear to me by reading between the lines that you are politically motivated to doubt AGW. Unfortunately, that puts you squarely into the camp which uses political beliefs to guide how they interpret science.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

[FirstAscent]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

[FirstAscent]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

This is the strawman I keep talking about...

[FirstAscent]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

This is the strawman I keep talking about...

I believe I have characterized you effectively.

[bb113]

You have no way to address what I said, so instead you create a strawman. Honestly, the answers are probably in the IPCC report somewhere, I just haven't gotten to them yet. It is disturbing how people vehemently "defend" what they don't understand. You aren't even defending anything, you are just attacking someone for asking questions.

You're not actually asking questions, researching, learning, or educating yourself. You're looking for phrases in one single document.

This is the strawman I keep talking about...

I believe I have characterized you effectively.

I believe that your goal here is to "characterize" others, rather than to inform others.

[Hawker]

Its all getting a bit personal

AGW is like religion.  You can say what you believe but no facts will change anyone's mind.  If you believe in scientific consensus, you are like someone who thought lobotomies were a great idea a few decades ago when close to 100% of scientist recommended them.  If you don't believe in scientific consensus, you are a member of the flat earth society.  There is no way of winning this argument for either of you.

[bb113]

No one ever concedes an argument on the internet, it is more for the benefit of the readers. Either way I will continue to examine the evidence with regard to clouds and short time-frame until I am informed enough to understand how the climate scientists deal with these issues. If I am not satisfied I'll find someone who knows what they are talking about to ask.

[FirstAscent]

If I am not satisfied I'll find someone who knows what they are talking about to ask.

How do you determine who knows what they're talking about?

[bb113]

I'll get back to this because I want to try semi-formalize my thought process. It has to do with being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, being able to indicate the boundaries of your own personal knowledge, indicating the boundaries of human knowledge, and being able to estimate the effects of possible sources of error throughout the workflow (e.g. temp sensors malfunctioning, publication selection bias, choice of statistical tests, etc). Someone who "knows what they are talking about" may not have all this info handy, but will know where to look to find it.

[FirstAscent]

I'll get back to this because I want to try semi-formalize my thought process. It has to do with being able to answer questions clearly and concisely, being able to indicate the boundaries of your own personal knowledge, indicating the boundaries of human knowledge, and being able to estimate the effects of possible sources of error throughout the workflow (e.g. temp sensors malfunctioning, publication selection bias, choice of statistical tests, etc). Someone who "knows what they are talking about" may not have all this info handy, but will know where to look to find it.

Wow. After all that, I still don't think that's a very effective method at all. It's too much work, which likely means you won't achieve your goal. It requires too much knowledge on the subject, which you're unlikely to ever possess. It appears to almost have an agenda (which is bias). It requires you to have a deep discussion with an expert, which you're unlikely to have, and then that calls into question who you chose to have said discussion with.

Honestly, for all your efforts, you're not going to achieve a good answer.

Here's a better way. Learn about the different ways climate change is being studied by reading mainstream articles written in science magazines. Take note of how independent methods (i.e ice cores vs. satellite studies vs. temperature measurements) corroborate each other. Learn about the motivations and credentials of those who seem to be constantly arguing against climate change and see how often you can discover any legitimacy and no connection to oil companies with said arguments.

[bb113]

Your way is the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about. These are pervasive on the internet. The very purpose of science is to avoid this problem. Reliance on data and evidence is the only thing separating science from philosophy. And yes, my way is more difficult and time consuming, but that is the standard I try to hold myself to before forming a strong opinion.

[bb113]

Honestly, for all your efforts, you're not going to achieve a good answer.

You could say this about any scientific undertaking. There is very rarely a "clear-cut" answer. That is the nature of experimentation. My goal is much less ambitious. I just hope to understand what is going on in that field. It is like comparing knowing how a car works with knowing how the human body works.

[FirstAscent]

Your way is the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about. These are pervasive on the internet. The very purpose of science is to avoid this problem. Reliance on data and evidence is the only thing separating science from philosophy. And yes, my way is more difficult and time consuming, but that is the standard I try to hold myself to before forming a strong opinion.

No - your way is biting off more than you can chew. You simply don't have the time, resources, talent, knowledge, or expertise to apply your method.

As for my method being the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about - that's simply not true. If anything, my methods clearly expose the fraud behind the material cited behind those who deny AGW.

Have you so quickly forgotten our discussion about the efficacy of your methods? Given the running history of your methods and errors in this thread, I don't have any confidence in your techniques. I'll quote my earlier summary below:

1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.

2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.

3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.

4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.

5. LOL.

[bb113]

Ok well I think you've exposed my fraud to the full extent of your capabilities, so I am not sure why this is continuing (although I like arguing on the internet too). Once I post more on this you can expose more fraud.

[FirstAscent]

Ok well I think you've exposed my fraud to the full extent of your capabilities, so I am not sure why this is continuing (although I like arguing on the internet too). Once I post more on this you can expose more fraud.

Please point out where I declared you a fraud. You won't be able to, because I never did. Once again, your statements and methods just fall short of being relevant, in more ways than one.

In a nutshell, your methods of seeking literature that states exactly what you want it to say, and my observations of your nitpicky parsing of words in specific scientific documents (among many thousands), your natural gravitation to according significance to scientists who are quite clearly sellouts to Big Oil, and your statements here in general demonstrate a general lack of effectiveness.

Take the advice I gave you earlier on how to better understand the overwhelming evidence of AGW. It's great advice, and to argue against it only further calls into question the likely success of your endeavors, which frankly, even you have had trouble articulating.

[bb113]

overwhelming evidence of AGW

Once again... what does this mean?
What specifically is AGW?
What specific evidence?

Then please point out what evidence I have ignored.

[drakahn]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

[Hawker]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

We are in what is technically called an interglacial.  An ice age is in progress but there has been a temporary rise in temperature.  As some point, the ice age will resume and the ice sheets that covered Europe and North America will return.

Put in those terms, maybe global warming is a good thing :O

[FirstAscent]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

Milankovitch cycles are one of the predominant causes of ice ages. And technically, those cycles are currently such that we should be headed into a new ice age (over thousands of years), and yet despite that, we are living in a time of rapid warming, coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age. This rapid warming is occurring at a rate which ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough to, and that results in mass extinctions (microscopic and macroscopic) which in turn results in a lowered productivity of the Earth's natural systems. That means less natural resources. Do not confuse a migration northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) of species to cope as being a simple displacement and change in location of biomass. Existing artificial and natural barriers (human developments, water bodies, mountains, etc.) prevent those migrations.

[FirstAscent]

overwhelming evidence of AGW

Once again... what does this mean?
What specifically is AGW?
What specific evidence?

Then please point out what evidence I have ignored.

Follow my advice. I've already given it, but I'll quote it for you again:

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

[tacotime]

I don't really need a lot of studies or overwhelming evidence or whatever.  One of the beaches I used to go to as a child in the 80's and early 90's was originally almost a kilometer long from shore to dunes.  Last year, the length of that same beach was about 300m, and in the past decade they have had to repump more sand into the beach to restore it (because it's disappearing) than they had in the previous 30 years.

Remember hard drive prices last year?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/89853/floods-show-what-lies-ahead-for-sinking-bangkok

[bb113]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

Milankovitch cycles are one of the predominant causes of ice ages. And technically, those cycles are currently such that we should be headed into a new ice age (over thousands of years), and yet despite that, we are living in a time of rapid warming, coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age. This rapid warming is occurring at a rate which ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough to, and that results in mass extinctions (microscopic and macroscopic) which in turn results in a lowered productivity of the Earth's natural systems. That means less natural resources. Do not confuse a migration northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) of species to cope as being a simple displacement and change in location of biomass. Existing artificial and natural barriers (human developments, water bodies, mountains, etc.) prevent those migrations.

It is important to note that such abrupt warming is not unprecedented. The ice core data indicates an abrupt warming of about 8 C over the course of 40 years occurred 11k years ago (for comparison most models predict a warming of 2-6 C, depending on various emissions scenarios, by 2099). Human society has developed during the exceptionally stable, warm period the earth has experienced over the last 10k years:



This stability has likely been a boon for the development of human civilization, but to imply that life cannot deal with sudden climate change is misleading. Yes, there may (most likely will) be mass extinctions and temporary decrease in biodiversity due to sudden warming, but these types of events have also been the driver of speciation and thus result in increased biodiversity over the longer term. So from the perspective of "life on earth", warming due to CO2 emissions is not really an issue. From the perspective of humans, it may cause us problems. We are currently the dominant species, so it is in our best interest to maintain the status quo.

[FirstAscent]

You've made a number of erroneous assumptions in your above post with regard to current research on climate change. You're still (predictably) following your special methods of research, which I have more than once explained to you are not very effective. Keep it up.

I would like to know how you came to know of Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

[bb113]

You've made a number of erroneous assumptions in your above post with regard to current research on climate change. You're still (predictably) following your special methods of research, which I have more than once explained to you are not very effective. Keep it up.

I would like to know how you came to know of Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

2007 IPCC report (which is basically my only method of research, and has been since early in this thread).

The importance of other sources of climate variability was heightened by the discovery of abrupt climate changes. In this context, ‘abrupt’ designates regional events of large amplitude, typically a few degrees celsius, which occurred within several decades – much shorter than the thousand-year time scales that characterise changes in astronomical forcing. Abrupt temperature changes were first revealed by the analysis of deep ice cores from Greenland (Dansgaard et al., 1984). Oeschger et al. (1984) recognised that the abrupt changes during the termination of the last ice age correlated with cooling in Gerzensee (Switzerland) and suggested that regime shifts in the Atlantic Ocean circulation were causing these widespread changes. The synthesis of palaeoclimatic observations by Broecker and Denton (1989) invigorated the community over the next decade. By the end of the 1990s, it became clear that the abrupt climate changes during the last ice age, particularly in the North Atlantic regions as found in the Greenland ice cores, were numerous (Dansgaard et al., 1993), indeed abrupt (Alley et al., 1993) and of large amplitude (Severinghaus and Brook, 1999). They are now referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A similar variability is seen in the North Atlantic Ocean, with north-south oscillations of the polar front (Bond et al., 1992) and associated changes in ocean temperature and salinity (Cortijo et al., 1999). With no obvious external forcing, these changes are thought to be manifestations of the internal variability of the climate system.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-2.html

[FirstAscent]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

[FirstAscent]

By the way, that's twice now that you've cited material that is largely pushed by guys who have not only a history of taking money from Big Oil, but also from the tobacco companies. You might want to start thinking about that.

[bb113]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

By the way, that's twice now that you've cited material that is largely pushed by guys who have not only a history of taking money from Big Oil, but also from the tobacco companies. You might want to start thinking about that.

I cited the IPCC...

[FirstAscent]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

It's also stating that Fred Singer likes to push it. Recall Frederick Seitz? And Richard Lindzen? Those two, plus Singer are all sellouts to Big Oil. And the tobacco industry. Are they experts on climate change or are they experts on the dangers of tobacco smoke? The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter, because they obviously have other agendas.

I cited the IPCC...

That's a point against you, not for you. You see, I said earlier that you need to read the scientific literature. I said that twice. And you just now admitted that the only thing you read is the 2007 IPCC document. Is that the one that Richard Lindzen was a participant in, before he became disassociated with it?

I'm telling you (for about the fourth time) - stop trotting out material that is associated with paid charlatans aligned with the oil and tobacco industries, and start reading the scientific periodicals.

[FirstAscent]

Regarding biodiversity and extinction events of the past. It is irrelevant that recoveries occurred. That's exactly analogous to saying, well, my house was leveled by a tornado, but it was rebuilt. So? What about the year you lived in a motel while it was being rebuilt?

[bb113]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

It's also stating that Fred Singer likes to push it. Recall Frederick Seitz? And Richard Lindzen? Those two, plus Singer are all sellouts to Big Oil. And the tobacco industry. Are they experts on climate change or are they experts on the dangers of tobacco smoke? The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter, because they obviously have other agendas.

I cited the IPCC...

That's a point against you, not for you. You see, I said earlier that you need to read the scientific literature. I said that twice. And you just now admitted that the only thing you read is the 2007 IPCC document. Is that the one that Richard Lindzen was a participant in, before he became disassociated with it?

I'm telling you (for about the fourth time) - stop trotting out material that is associated with paid charlatans aligned with the oil and tobacco industries, and start reading the scientific periodicals.

Well this was from the 2007 report, Lindzen was an author for the "clouds" chapter in 2001.

So you think the IPCC is not a good starting point? I only consider it a useful summary, but one must start somewhere.

Apparently you know more about this stuff than me... are the IPCC reports untrustworthy because some of the info in there is associated with paid charlatans?

[bb113]

Regarding biodiversity and extinction events of the past. It is irrelevant that recoveries occurred. That's exactly analogous to saying, well, my house was leveled by a tornado, but it was rebuilt.

I don't follow, are you saying that using what is known about the past to inform future projections is invalid?

So? What about the year you lived in a motel while it was being rebuilt?

Yes, i explicitly say climate change would suck for those living at the time. I only wished to nuance what you said regarding extinction by making reference to past abrupt climate changes after which life on earth continued. Not sure what data there is on how well biodiversity recovers and how long this takes.

[FirstAscent]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

It's also stating that Fred Singer likes to push it. Recall Frederick Seitz? And Richard Lindzen? Those two, plus Singer are all sellouts to Big Oil. And the tobacco industry. Are they experts on climate change or are they experts on the dangers of tobacco smoke? The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter, because they obviously have other agendas.

I cited the IPCC...

That's a point against you, not for you. You see, I said earlier that you need to read the scientific literature. I said that twice. And you just now admitted that the only thing you read is the 2007 IPCC document. Is that the one that Richard Lindzen was a participant in, before he became disassociated with it?

I'm telling you (for about the fourth time) - stop trotting out material that is associated with paid charlatans aligned with the oil and tobacco industries, and start reading the scientific periodicals.

Well this was from the 2007 report, Lindzen was an author for the "clouds" chapter in 2001.

So you think the IPCC is not a good starting point? I only consider it a useful summary, but one must start somewhere.

Apparently you know more about this stuff than me... are the IPCC reports untrustworthy because some of the info in there is associated with paid charlatans?

I don't read the IPCC reports. And for all I know, the reference to the Dansgaard-Oeschger events was just background material, in an effort to be thorough.

Please, read the reputable scientific periodicals, either peer reviewed, or more mainstream ones like Scientific American. Do that for two years, or read back issues. For lack of a better way of putting it, you'll just feel that AGW makes sense. And conversely, every time you come across something that sounds like it is smugly pointing out that AGW must not be happening, dig a little deeper, and I can assure you - every single time - you'll discover it has ties to Big Oil, and even more strangely, the same people will have also been paid off by the tobacco companies years ago.

[FirstAscent]

Regarding biodiversity and extinction events of the past. It is irrelevant that recoveries occurred. That's exactly analogous to saying, well, my house was leveled by a tornado, but it was rebuilt.

I don't follow, are you saying that using what is known about the past to inform future projections is invalid?

So? What about the year you lived in a motel while it was being rebuilt?

Yes, i explicitly say climate change would suck for those living at the time. I only wished to nuance what you said regarding extinction by making reference to past abrupt climate changes after which life on earth continued. Not sure what data there is on how well biodiversity recovers and how long this takes.

Obviously, things will recover. For example, life recovered from the asteriod impact 65 million years ago. Tell that to a dinosaur though. The point is, just because recovery occurs, or things adapt, does not mean it will be beneficial to us.

And that's another thing. Just how much do you know about ecosystems, trophic cascades, natural productivity, and so on? A great example is how wolves provide us with clean water. You wouldn't think, but its true.

[bb113]

Ok, so now the IPCC is not a proper source of information... I wouldn't put too much stock in scientific american since it isn't peer reviewed. Do you have any recent review articles that you consider informative that I should use as a starting point? Basically I was using the 2007 IPCC as an extensive review article.

[bb113]

Regarding biodiversity and extinction events of the past. It is irrelevant that recoveries occurred. That's exactly analogous to saying, well, my house was leveled by a tornado, but it was rebuilt.

I don't follow, are you saying that using what is known about the past to inform future projections is invalid?

So? What about the year you lived in a motel while it was being rebuilt?

Yes, i explicitly say climate change would suck for those living at the time. I only wished to nuance what you said regarding extinction by making reference to past abrupt climate changes after which life on earth continued. Not sure what data there is on how well biodiversity recovers and how long this takes.

Obviously, things will recover. For example, life recovered from the asteriod impact 65 million years ago. Tell that to a dinosaur though. The point is, just because recovery occurs, or things adapt, does not mean it will be beneficial to us.

Agreed, I am not sure why you are arguing my post on this point then.

And that's another thing. Just how much do you know about ecosystems, trophic cascades, natural productivity, and so on? A great example is how wolves provide us with clean water. You wouldn't think, but its true.

I have an undergrad in pre-med (including a few classes on ecosystems, etc), as well as 4 years of gradschool pharmacology/neuroscience. In terms of informal education, nothing beyond wikipedia and documentaries. So... practically nothing, but probably more than the average person due to a background heavy in biology. How much do you know?

[FirstAscent]

Ok, so now the IPCC is not a proper source of information... I wouldn't put too much stock in scientific american since it isn't peer reviewed. Do you have any recent review articles that you consider informative that I should use as a starting point? Basically I was using the 2007 IPCC as an extensive review article.

Scientific American articles are summaries of scientific research written by scientists. It's up to you to follow up, if you so choose. I am getting tired of stating what is common sense among scientists, which is to read the popular scientific literature - something you have admitted on several occasions that you do not do. I cannot help you further on this matter.

[bb113]

I must misunderstand you. Are you claiming Scientific American is proper scientific literature but the IPCC reports are not?

Is there a review article you recommend?

[FirstAscent]

I have an undergrad in pre-med (including a few classes on ecosystems, etc), as well as 4 years of gradschool pharmacology/neuroscience. In terms of informal education, nothing beyond wikipedia and documentaries. So... practically nothing, but probably more than the average person due to a background heavy in biology. How much do you know?

I've never had a class on ecosystems. And I've certainly never had a course on neuroscience. And I nearly failed high school algebra.

Now, do you want to discuss riparian zones or trophic cascades? Analytic geometry? Finding the roots of 6th degree polynomials? Sampling over the hemisphere as a method of integration in calculating total net energy falling upon a surface? Or would you like to discuss ion flow between synaptic connections, and the suitability of artificial neural networks vs. biological neural networks as a means of simulating brain activity? Perhaps you'd like to discuss STDP (Spike timed dependent plasticity) as a plausible mathematical model for representing the change in synaptic weights and how it models learning in brains?

The bottom line: your background is irrelevant, and so is mine.

[FirstAscent]

I must misunderstand you.

Obviously.

[bb113]

I have an undergrad in pre-med (including a few classes on ecosystems, etc), as well as 4 years of gradschool pharmacology/neuroscience. In terms of informal education, nothing beyond wikipedia and documentaries. So... practically nothing, but probably more than the average person due to a background heavy in biology. How much do you know?

I've never had a class on ecosystems. And I've certainly never had a course on neuroscience. And I nearly failed high school algebra.

Now, do you want to discuss riparian zones or trophic cascades? Analytic geometry? Finding the roots of 6th degree polynomials? Sampling over the hemisphere as a method of integration in calculating total net energy falling upon a surface? Or would you like to discuss ion flow between synaptic connections, and the suitability of artificial neural networks vs. biological neural networks as a means of simulating brain activity? Perhaps you'd like to discuss STDP (Spike timed dependent plasticity) as a plausible mathematical model for representing the change in synaptic weights and how it models learning in brains?

The bottom line: your background is irrelevant, and so is mine.

It is somewhat relevant in being able to interpret the literature. But you are right, the discussion should not be based on our backgrounds, but what we contribute to the conversation and most importantly the data. Actually I would love to discuss STDP, especially with regards to the role it may play in recovery after brain injury... make a thread.
By the way, sometimes I feel like I am arguing with a bot here

[Matthew N. Wright]

Hey guys, guess what! This entirely interesting and serious debate is featured here! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64611.msg758894#msg758894

[bb113]

Hey guys, guess what! This entirely interesting and serious debate is featured here! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=64611.msg758894#msg758894

Haha I saw that. My point is supposed to be your point though... too bad it got lost in translation.

[FirstAscent]

STDP is interesting as an alternative to the methods presented by Rumelhart and McClelland in their classic PDP texts (which I studied back in the late '80s), and, in my opinion, has far more applicability to simulation of the brain than the simpler back propagation models proposed by Rumelhart.

As for wolves, I suggest you learn about the effects wolves have on riparian zones, and why it matters.

[bb113]

Ok, why not go off topic... matthew thinks this thread is dumb anyway. In simulating neural activity (which I know little about), how detailed are the models of dendritic arbor and spines?

Warning, jargon below:
I mean do they attempt to model all the postsynaptic feedback factors (AMPA and NMDA receptors, various GPCRs and G-proteins, etc) to level of the cytoskeleton, or is it just calcium influx -> greater weight? Also, how is the weight of each synapse adjusted according to distance and number of branch points from the soma, is this corrected for dendritic thickness?

What would the effect on firing rate be if a certain treatment increased the proportion of distal dendritic branches while decreasing the number proximal to the soma (i.e. results of sholl analysis)? Assume same input firing rate, homogenous spine density, etc.

[bb113]

With regards to my last question. I should say that on the face of it, it appears to me the neuron has become "less certain" about which inputs to listen to, so will show a more variable response to any given input.

[FlipPro]

Ok, why not go off topic... matthew thinks this thread is dumb anyway. In simulating neural activity (which I know little about), how detailed are the models of dendritic arbor and spines?

Warning, jargon below:
I mean do they attempt to model all the postsynaptic feedback factors (AMPA and NMDA receptors, various GPCRs and G-proteins, etc) to level of the cytoskeleton, or is it just calcium influx -> greater weight? Also, how is the weight of each synapse adjusted according to distance and number of branch points from the soma, is this corrected for dendritic thickness?

What would the effect on firing rate be if a certain treatment increased the proportion of distal dendritic branches while decreasing the number proximal to the soma (i.e. results of sholl analysis)? Assume same input firing rate, homogenous spine density, etc.

You gotta be paid by BP.

Just gotta...

[Matthew N. Wright]

To sum things up, pollution is horrible and highly avoidable. Climate change can be more or less controlled by science, but the mini seasons and long seasons will be naturally hot and naturally cold, eventually freezing us all to death or burning us all up. Such is the galactic alignment we inherited. There are way better arguments for clean energy than trumped up, widely speculated claims.

[bb113]

Ok, why not go off topic... matthew thinks this thread is dumb anyway. In simulating neural activity (which I know little about), how detailed are the models of dendritic arbor and spines?

Warning, jargon below:
I mean do they attempt to model all the postsynaptic feedback factors (AMPA and NMDA receptors, various GPCRs and G-proteins, etc) to level of the cytoskeleton, or is it just calcium influx -> greater weight? Also, how is the weight of each synapse adjusted according to distance and number of branch points from the soma, is this corrected for dendritic thickness?

What would the effect on firing rate be if a certain treatment increased the proportion of distal dendritic branches while decreasing the number proximal to the soma (i.e. results of sholl analysis)? Assume same input firing rate, homogenous spine density, etc.

You gotta be paid by BP.

Just gotta...

I wish I got paid for this. I expect to take on some douchebaggage for the post above. But it may be worth it.

To sum things up, pollution is horrible and highly avoidable. Climate change can be more or less controlled by science, but the mini seasons and long seasons will be naturally hot and naturally cold, eventually freezing us all to death or burning us all up. Such is the galactic alignment we inherited. There are way better arguments for clean energy than trumped up, widely speculated claims.

How can climate change be controlled by science?

[FirstAscent]

Ok, why not go off topic... matthew thinks this thread is dumb anyway. In simulating neural activity (which I know little about), how detailed are the models of dendritic arbor and spines?

Warning, jargon below:
I mean do they attempt to model all the postsynaptic feedback factors (AMPA and NMDA receptors, various GPCRs and G-proteins, etc) to level of the cytoskeleton, or is it just calcium influx -> greater weight? Also, how is the weight of each synapse adjusted according to distance and number of branch points from the soma, is this corrected for dendritic thickness?

What would the effect on firing rate be if a certain treatment increased the proportion of distal dendritic branches while decreasing the number proximal to the soma (i.e. results of sholl analysis)? Assume same input firing rate, homogenous spine density, etc.

If you're genuinely interested, read everything you can about the Bluebrain project: http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

They are using an IBM supercomputer which has enough resources to dedicate the equivalent of one laptop per neuron, each having perhaps 5,000 synaptic connections for the simulation of one cortical column. Watch the simulation of a cortical column completely built from scans of slices of a rat's brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHi9oLzvD8E

Google PDF documents where Henry Markram is a coauthor. Watch the TED video he gave. Their goal is build a complete human brain. As for some of your technical questions, I don't have the answers.

I personally was implementing STDP and an empirical model to simulate a neuron's action potential, with very efficient storage of synaptic connections, simulating the length of axons and dendrites by storing them in a list, sorted by length, such that the program could traverse the list, adding in the delay from one to the next, and thus the program would always know the next synapse which would fire, and these pulses would accumulate to each respective receiving neuron, such that it could be calculated which neuron would fire next, thus distributing pulses further on down the line.

[FirstAscent]

While on the subject of brains, from a philosophical viewpoint, do you buy Dennett's arguments, or do you prefer the ideas articulated by Chalmers? Or, do you think Hameroff's studies, inspired by Penrose are the ticket? While I think Hameroff is onto something, given his credentials and line of study, I think he only seems to be addressing the 'how', as opposed to the 'why'. It's Dennett's and Chalmers' sparring that really goes after the Hard Problem. As for me personally, while I admit that Dennett is a great writer, and his stuff is really interesting to read, in the end, his answers are just unsatisfactory, although he seems so insistent that he's answered the big question. That's why, ultimately, I find Chalmers' discussion on the subject to be the most interesting.

[Matthew N. Wright]

How can climate change be controlled by science?

You don't watch enough cartoons. Don't you know that before Bitcoin, when people asked "how" all you had to say was "Science!". It replaced its long lived predecessor "Jesus".

[bb113]

Ok, why not go off topic... matthew thinks this thread is dumb anyway. In simulating neural activity (which I know little about), how detailed are the models of dendritic arbor and spines?

Warning, jargon below:
I mean do they attempt to model all the postsynaptic feedback factors (AMPA and NMDA receptors, various GPCRs and G-proteins, etc) to level of the cytoskeleton, or is it just calcium influx -> greater weight? Also, how is the weight of each synapse adjusted according to distance and number of branch points from the soma, is this corrected for dendritic thickness?

What would the effect on firing rate be if a certain treatment increased the proportion of distal dendritic branches while decreasing the number proximal to the soma (i.e. results of sholl analysis)? Assume same input firing rate, homogenous spine density, etc.

If you're genuinely interested, read everything you can about the Bluebrain project: http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

They are using an IBM supercomputer which has enough resources to dedicate the equivalent of one laptop per neuron, each having perhaps 5,000 synaptic connections for the simulation of one cortical column. Watch the simulation of a cortical column completely built from scans of slices of a rat's brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHi9oLzvD8E

Google PDF documents where Henry Markram is a coauthor. Watch the TED video he gave. Their goal is build a complete human brain. As for some of your technical questions, I don't have the answers.

I personally was implementing STDP and an empirical model to simulate a neuron's action potential, with very efficient storage of synaptic connections, simulating the length of axons and dendrites by storing them in a list, sorted by length, such that the program could traverse the list, adding in the delay from one to the next, and thus the program would always know the next synapse which would fire, and these pulses would accumulate to each respective receiving neuron, such that it could be calculated which neuron would fire next, thus distributing pulses further on down the line.

Ah, I actually have never heard about this project (or at least didn't pay attention if I did) but have consistently come across great papers out of Henry Markram's lab.

[bb113]

While on the subject of brains, from a philosophical viewpoint, do you buy Dennett's arguments, or do you prefer the ideas articulated by Chalmers? Or, do you think Hameroff's studies, inspired by Penrose are the ticket? While I think Hameroff is onto something, given his credentials and line of study, I think he only seems to be addressing the 'how', as opposed to the 'why'. It's Dennett's and Chalmers' sparring that really goes after the Hard Problem. As for me personally, while I admit that Dennett is a great writer, and his stuff is really interesting to read, in the end, his answers are just unsatisfactory, although he seems so insistent that he's answered the big question. That's why, ultimately, I find Chalmers' discussion on the subject to be the most interesting.

Honestly I stopped paying close attention to the "what is consciousness argument" a couple years ago (I think that is what you are referring to)... Real answers will come from generating data, philosophizing is just a fancy word for bullshitting, psychology is only slightly better... not that its useless. My position is that I am just as capable of coming up with logical sounding theories as anyone else until we have more data. I think the "political impediments" to studying hallucinogens is really hurting this type of research. I got a chance to have dinner with David Nichol's recently and it was awesome. His son has actually published some interesting stuff on free will as well, beyond that I haven't been paying attention.

[bb113]

How can climate change be controlled by science?

You don't watch enough cartoons. Don't you know that before Bitcoin, when people asked "how" all you had to say was "Science!". It replaced its long lived predecessor "Jesus".

Agreed, there is a disturbing case of science=fact in some circles. It misses the whole point.

[FirstAscent]

While on the subject of brains, from a philosophical viewpoint, do you buy Dennett's arguments, or do you prefer the ideas articulated by Chalmers? Or, do you think Hameroff's studies, inspired by Penrose are the ticket? While I think Hameroff is onto something, given his credentials and line of study, I think he only seems to be addressing the 'how', as opposed to the 'why'. It's Dennett's and Chalmers' sparring that really goes after the Hard Problem. As for me personally, while I admit that Dennett is a great writer, and his stuff is really interesting to read, in the end, his answers are just unsatisfactory, although he seems so insistent that he's answered the big question. That's why, ultimately, I find Chalmers' discussion on the subject to be the most interesting.

Honestly I stopped paying close attention to the "what is consciousness argument" a couple years ago (I think that is what you are referring to)... Real answers will come from generating data, philosophizing is just a fancy word for bullshitting, psychology is only slightly better... not that its useless. My position is that I am just as capable of coming up with logical sounding theories as anyone else until we have more data. I think the "political impediments" to studying hallucinogens is really hurting this type of research. I got a chance to have dinner with David Nichol's recently and it was awesome. His son has actually published some interesting stuff on free will as well, beyond that I haven't been paying attention.

I think you're failing to appreciate the Hard Problem, and discussion of it. A lot of people confuse qualia with stimulation.

[bb113]

Probably, need more data before I'm interested.

[FirstAscent]

Probably, need more data before I'm interested.

You mean you're just not interested - which is fine. Your requirement for more data is a bit silly though. Perhaps you haven't read Chalmers and Dennett?

[bb113]

Dennet like 5 years ago, not sure about the others you mention. Don't get me wrong I love that stuff, but feel it is not really the most productive use of time. I went the path of philosophy -> pyschology -> neuroscience -> molecular biology (pharmacology). Basically I became dissatisfied with a top-down approach to understanding the brain/consciousness. It is too easy to generate logical narratives if you are unconstrained by data, then people start arguing about minutia and ambiguous definitions. But maybe I should get into this big picture perspective again. Here is my own concept (not sure how it matches up with what is in the literature):

The brain: An organ that receives information about its surroundings and outputs behavior. It has evolved into a way for large, long-lived organisms to generate a wide set of novel behavior responses to novel (or at least an uncertain set of) environmental conditions. Its value is that it allows predicting the future based on past experience. Although I use the term predictive, the brain's role here is as reactive decision maker. For organisms filling the large, long-lived niche, it is more energy efficient (from the perspective of the of genetic material) for behavior to be informed by past experience than the alternative: throwing a lot of hardwired variations on behavior at every problem and letting the best solution get selected out over the course of generations. This latter solution is predictive, but less reliable in the face of uncertainty.

The self: A subset of the environment that the brain receives a constant stream of information about (Do you consider your hair a part of yourself?) and is by far the easiest thing for the brain to predict the behavior of. The nature of the information from the self is also qualitatively different from that received about other parts of the environment.

Qualia: The simultaneous processing of multiple memories + sensory input. You will no more be able to completely describe a qualia with language than you can a picture. The parallel basis of qualia preclude description with a serial flow of information like language. It may be possible to communicate qualia via other methods though.

Consciousness: An awareness of the current and (projected) future self. I wouldn't say people are "conscious" when panicked, for example.

Free will: Perhaps it can be described as an illusion. Before making a decision (for example what to buy at the pop machine), all information about the environment is incorporated up until milliseconds before the behaviour occurs, so imagining your response to this scenario beforehand can never be done using complete information... It is how the brain understands that its own past behaviour will not be a perfect predictor of future behavior. The ability to incorporate this reality into "consciousness" is necessary to facilitate complex social interactions. Attributing free will to a "wrong-doer" makes it easier to ignore feelings of empathy by underestimating the role of circumstance in the wrong-doers behavior. Turning this back on yourself is the brains way of explaining behavior modification in response to negative social signals.

Critique away  

[FirstAscent]

You clearly align yourself with Dennett. Dennett attempts to explain the existence of qualia by explaining the resultant effects of physical processes happening inside the brain. It's not a satisfying explanation. I prefer Chalmers.

The first step: be very clear on what qualia is. It isn't the perception of red. It isn't even the assigning of a label of red in your mind, i.e. "I see the color red", which is in fact the recognition of seeing red and consolidating of all that neural activity into an alternate, perhaps simpler set of neural activity: symbolism via neural circuitry. Qualia are a set of experiences which equate to what it's like to see red.

Consider: the brain is a parallel machine. It is composed of cells which fire together through internal and external feedback. However, the resultant effects of those processes can be simulated on a computer either via parallel methods with the appropriate hardware, or serial hardware.

In other words, given a machine that has one processor and enough memory, the activities of neural circuitry within a brain can be simulated - each and every neuron and its attendant dendrites and axons and action potentials. The program code can be tuned through equations which simulate physical processes to produce the exact same neural activity, and if the machine is fast enough, at the exact same speed.

The problem is, from a complexity view, the silicon machine can have the exact same architecture as a computer from ten years ago or earlier. Any Turing complete machine, serial or otherwise, given enough memory, can reproduce both the output of a brain, and the internal states of a brain. If you were to argue that that machine, while running the above described simulation, was experiencing qualia, then you must consider that that machine, while running any program, including its native operating system, is experiencing qualia. But it's perfectly reasonable and probably correct that a machine running serial machine code is not experiencing qualia.

Then we have panpsychism. Let's assume we live on a very large planet with many nations like China. Let's assume the population is equivalent to the number of neurons inside the brain. Either because that's the way it happens, or because the people are instructed to behave a certain way, let's assume that through communication among people, messaging occurs between the people such that messages are passed between people in patterns that exactly replicate what happens in your brain when you see red.

Ignoring the consciousness of each individual person in the above scenario (in fact, we can assume they are simple mechanical machines), can we say that the population as a whole is experiencing qualia?

This then naturally raises the question: is our world economy conscious? It certainly mimics the processes of the brain through the actions of its constituent elements and outputs behavior.

Yes, in a sense, we do need more data, but what will it get us? Likely nothing. Understanding the neuron down to the quantum level only allows us to create simulations at a more granular level.

What is needed is a theory on consciousness that is as revolutionary as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which can make predictions, and allow for testing.

However, testing the behavior of the system which is allegedly conscious by observing what it does and says is not the correct way, unless you accept panpsychism - i.e. consciousness in everything, which may or may not be true. A new theory most likely must posit that consciousness is a fundamental property of physical matter (panpsychism in a sense), or an external as of yet unknown component of the Universe which exists, but we just don't know it yet.

[bb113]

The first step: be very clear on what qualia is. It isn't the perception of red. It isn't even the assigning of a label of red in your mind, i.e. "I see the color red", which is in fact the recognition of seeing red and consolidating of all that neural activity into an alternate, perhaps simpler set of neural activity: symbolism via neural circuitry. Qualia are a set of experiences which equate to what it's like to see red.

Yes, in a sense, we do need more data, but what will it get us? Likely nothing. Understanding the neuron down to the quantum level only allows us to create simulations at a more granular level.

Anything occurring at the quantum level is probably less important than understanding the structure and dynamics of the circuitry

In other words, given a machine that has one processor and enough memory, the activities of neural circuitry within a brain can be simulated - each and every neuron and its attendant dendrites and axons and action potentials. The program code can be tuned through equations which simulate physical processes to produce the exact same neural activity, and if the machine is fast enough, at the exact same speed.

What makes you say this? I don't think this is true at all.

[FirstAscent]

The first step: be very clear on what qualia is. It isn't the perception of red. It isn't even the assigning of a label of red in your mind, i.e. "I see the color red", which is in fact the recognition of seeing red and consolidating of all that neural activity into an alternate, perhaps simpler set of neural activity: symbolism via neural circuitry. Qualia are a set of experiences which equate to what it's like to see red.

Yes, in a sense, we do need more data, but what will it get us? Likely nothing. Understanding the neuron down to the quantum level only allows us to create simulations at a more granular level.

Anything occurring at the quantum level is probably less important than understanding the structure and dynamics of the circuitry

In other words, given a machine that has one processor and enough memory, the activities of neural circuitry within a brain can be simulated - each and every neuron and its attendant dendrites and axons and action potentials. The program code can be tuned through equations which simulate physical processes to produce the exact same neural activity, and if the machine is fast enough, at the exact same speed.

What makes you say this? I don't think this is true at all.

Why have you boldfaced "symbolism via neural circuitry"?

As for your two remarks, oddly they are contradictory.

[bb113]

I boldfaced to emphasize the importance of circuitry rather than quantum effects. I don't think they are contradictory statements, I just do not understand:

1) Why serial processing with large enough memory can be a proxy for parallel processing (I may not understand the role of the large enough memory here, so please explain)

2) How such a system would be able to replicate the dynamics.

Neural circuitry is not at all static. See this Video of spines/filopodia changing over the course of hours. So, any simulation would also have to account for these dynamics, and alter the algorithms with respect to previous activity as time passes. That is in addition to all the receptor desensitization and trafficking, etc. If you take the simulation out long enough it should also account for the susceptibility of certain cell types to different types of damage that occurs, e.g. mutations (due to differing epigenetic patterns, oxidative stress), etc as the brain ages. Astrocytes, microglia, and the vasculature also play crucial roles in maintaining and altering neural circuitry.

So, I have my doubts that any static hardware (even using accurate dynamic algorithms) could be used to properly mimic a system like this. I am not saying these models are not useful, just that a "silicon brain", as you put it, would be a fundamentally different phenomenon. Therefore, any experience this silicon brain had of qualia would necessarily be fundamentally different.

Essentially, the term qualia refers to an emergent property of a certain type of complex system (the brain). It is the way the brain responds to sensory input. If we expand this to include silicon brains and countries, we are saying that qualia refers to an emergent property of a complex system that arises due to the system "sensing" a change in it's environment.

According to that definition, any suitably complex system that changes in response to it's environment will experience qualia, and can be deemed "conscious". Suitably complex can reasonably be defined as "equal to or more complex" than the human brain. So, then consciousness is a word we use to describe the complexity and responsiveness of a system to it's environment; It is not a phenomenon, but a poorly defined measure of degrees of freedom. Consciousness is a definition, definitions are inherently tautologies.

[bb113]

Hmm, so is any suitably complex system "self-aware"? I would say yes. Self-aware in the same way as a human? No. Are all humans equally "self-aware"? I would say no, unless we define humans as self aware, and self awareness as a human trait. Then we are back to the tautologies.

Anyway, my point is that only human brains can be conscious in the way human brains are and so cannot truly be replicated in silico, if we expand the definition to include other complex systems, we are simply talking about degrees of freedom.

[bb113]

And oh yea. So then the real question people are searching for the answer for is "What are the components of the human brain and how do these components interact to give rise to the observed degrees of freedom?" The answer is "we don't know, need more data". If you would like a better answer do neuroscience research or donate the proceeds of your other efforts to the study of neuroscience. I suppose the philosophers are contributing to the effort by attempting to qualitatively describe the degrees of freedom, but a real answer requires quantification, which requires more data.

[FirstAscent]

I boldfaced to emphasize the importance of circuitry rather than quantum effects. I don't think they are contradictory statements, I just do not understand:

1) Why serial processing with large enough memory can be a proxy for parallel processing (I may not understand the role of the large enough memory here, so please explain)

How much do you know about single taped Turing machines? Nothing could be more serial. And they are capable of replicating the behavior of any computer, parallel or serial.

2) How such a system would be able to replicate the dynamics.

Neural circuitry is not at all static. See this Video of spines/filopodia changing over the course of hours. So, any simulation would also have to account for these dynamics, and alter the algorithms with respect to previous activity as time passes. That is in addition to all the receptor desensitization and trafficking, etc. If you take the simulation out long enough it should also account for the susceptibility of certain cell types to different types of damage that occurs, e.g. mutations (due to differing epigenetic patterns, oxidative stress), etc as the brain ages. Astrocytes, microglia, and the vasculature also play crucial roles in maintaining and altering neural circuitry.

Any Turing machine (serial) could replicate all of the above, to any degree desired. Memory is the only limitation.

So, I have my doubts that any static hardware (even using accurate dynamic algorithms) could be used to properly mimic a system like this. I am not saying these models are not useful, just that a "silicon brain", as you put it, would be a fundamentally different phenomenon. Therefore, any experience this silicon brain had of qualia would necessarily be fundamentally different.

It's difficult to answer your statement above when it is in conflict with what I have been saying, but then, in the last sentence, it concludes what I concluded. Your above statement, in the first sentence, is not well grounded. See my above statements about Turing machines. Your conclusions, however ill founded they are, basically say what I said. That is, one doubts the sense of such a machine being conscious. Unfortunately, your statements below confound the issue due to your incorrect assumptions as to what consciousness is and what qualia are.

Essentially, the term qualia refers to an emergent property of a certain type of complex system (the brain). It is the way the brain responds to sensory input.

You are completely wrong here. That is not what qualia refers to. The way the brain responds to sensory input is not qualia. What you have described is a physical process. Qualia refers to the accompanied experience of the way things seem which correlates to different processes occurring within the brain - typically a distributed activation of a subset of the brain's neurons. You might want to get familiar with the concept of Philosophical Zombies and their conceivability. Whether you buy into the conceivability of Philosophical Zombies or not is irrelevant - you still must understand what they are to fully discuss qualia. Note that we're not even talking about the possibility of Philosophical Zombies actually existing, merely the conceivability of them.

If we expand this to include silicon brains and countries, we are saying that qualia refers to an emergent property of a complex system that arises due to the system "sensing" a change in it's environment.

Again, not quite right, but closer. You must detach qualia from the term "sensing". Sensing refers to a change in state due to incoming stimulation. That is not qualia. Qualia is the the experience which accompanies sensing either internal or external changes in state.

According to that definition, any suitably complex system that changes in response to it's environment will experience qualia, and can be deemed "conscious".

Nobody is really making any such claim. If it were so simple, we wouldn't have such discussions, and people such as Chalmers, Dennett, Penrose and Hofstadter would be writing basic texts of how things work, rather than how they hypothesize what might be happening.

Suitably complex can reasonably be defined as "equal to or more complex" than the human brain. So, then consciousness is a word we use to describe the complexity and responsiveness of a system to it's environment;

Wrong. Consciousness is not a word we use to describe the complexity and responsiveness of a system to its environment.

[bb113]

Any Turing machine (serial) could replicate all of the above, to any degree desired. Memory is the only limitation.

Sorry for the multiple posts... Anyway, please explain this further.

Qualia refers to the accompanied experience of the way things seem which correlates to different processes occurring within the brain - typically a distributed activation of a subset of the brain's neurons.

Also, are you claiming that experience is not a physical process? If so, then this is the ambiguous definition we now need to argue about.

[FirstAscent]

Any Turing machine (serial) could replicate all of the above, to any degree desired. Memory is the only limitation.

Sorry for the multiple posts... Anyway, please explain this further.

Turing machines (and the concept of Turing completeness) are fundamental concepts within the fields of computer science and mathematics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

Qualia refers to the accompanied experience of the way things seem which correlates to different processes occurring within the brain - typically a distributed activation of a subset of the brain's neurons.

Also, are you claiming that experience is not a physical process? If so, then this is the ambiguous definition we now need to argue about.

Physical processes are just that: tires rolling down the road, lightning strikes, soil erosion, breathing, photons hitting cells in you eyes, neurons firing. It is not appropriate to discuss consciousness within the context of those processes. Accept them for what they are: physical processes.

Qualia is the experience you seem to have inside your mind - the constant streaming movie and awareness of your life that you are witness to.

Do not confuse the experience of seeing red with the physical process of your brain processing the event precipitated by photons of the red wavelength hitting your eyes. Qualia is the experience which accompanies the physical process inside your brain. It is not the physical processes that are happening within your brain. I cannot stress enough the importance of becoming familiar with the concept of Philosophical Zombies at this point.

[bb113]

I am somewhat familiar with philosophical zombies and turing machines. I just learn best by asking questions... So, with regards to experience: Would you say "experience is the result of physical processes"?

[FirstAscent]

I am somewhat familiar with philosophical zombies and turing machines. I just learn best by asking questions... So, with regards to experience: Would you say "experience is the result of physical processes"?

That is the 64 million dollar question. The short answer is: yes.

The long answer:

1. Can we say that experience is strictly the result of physical processes, or is it the result of physical processes and some other component/layer/plane of the Universe that we don't know about?

2. Can we say that all physical processes give rise to experience, or only some types. i.e. is calcium a required component?

3. Is experience not tied to physical processes at all, but the timing of information transmission and in certain amounts at certain frequencies?

More information about what is happening physically inside the brain is unlikely to yield satisfying answers. More information will tell us how better to correlate physical brain processes to experience (i.e. consciousness, qualia and experience), but it will not answer the big question without a revolutionary theory, in my opinion.

Is consciousness a fundamental property of the Universe - something which exists and is ready to manifest when the proper physical structure and events occur? If so, what is that fundamental property?

[bb113]

I am somewhat familiar with philosophical zombies and turing machines. I just learn best by asking questions... So, with regards to experience: Would you say "experience is the result of physical processes"?

That is the 64 million dollar question. The short answer is: yes.

The long answer:

1. Can we say that experience is strictly the result of physical processes, or is it the result of physical processes and some other component/layer/plane of the Universe that we don't know about?

2. Can we say that all physical processes give rise to experience, or only some types. i.e. is calcium a required component?

3. Is experience not tied to physical processes at all, but the timing of information transmission and in certain amounts at certain frequencies?

More information about what is happening physically inside the brain is unlikely to yield satisfying answers. More information will tell us how better to correlate physical brain processes to experience (i.e. consciousness, qualia and experience), but it will not answer the big question without a revolutionary theory, in my opinion.

Is consciousness a fundamental property of the Universe - something which exists and is ready to manifest when the proper physical structure and events occur? If so, what is that fundamental property?

To rephrase in scientist language (correct me if I have misinterpreted):

1. Are known physical processes sufficient to explain experience?
- To answer this we must add all possible combinations of physical processes to an unconscious substance until it becomes conscious or we run out of processes to add.

2. Are all physical processes known to be involved in generating experience actually necessary to generate experience? Are there other processes that could substitute?
-To answer this we need to remove physical processes from a conscious substance one by one (and in all possible combinations) then record whether or not consciousness remains. Next we need to substitute all other physical processes (one by one and in combination) for each of the removed processes (one by one) and observe if consciousness reappears.

3. The timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. Do these phenomena explain consciousness?
-You are making the assumption that the timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. We need to address why this assumption was made.

It is impossible to prove a negative, one can only state a theory is exceedingly implausible when compared to alternatives. Is there any evidence for some other plane of the universe that contributes to consciousness? How strong is this evidence relative to the evidence that experience is strictly the result of physical processes? Since we will never have complete information about the universe, in the end there will always be an aspect of subjectivity (i.e., more spiritual people will give the unknown process hypothesis a higher prior probability). All we can do is look for support of the hypothesis that experience can be accounted for due to known physical processes. In other words, need more data.

The experiments mentioned above would get us a conclusive answer but they are infeasible to perform in a human lifetime (likely taking millenia), and we humans want answers immediately. So, rather than swapping in and out physical processes in a random order, we should learn more about what processes are important in generating experience to determine what the most likely physical processes may be. Then do the experiments with those likely culprits first. This is what neuroscientists are currently doing. Maybe humans are one of the experiments of an extremely long lived entity trying to rule out non-physical explanations for consciousness?

With regards to #3:
What examples of information transmission are you aware of that occur without being tied to physical processes?

[FirstAscent]

3. The timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. Do these phenomena explain consciousness?[/b]
-You are making the assumption that the timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. We need to address why this assumption was made.

Without addressing anything else you have said at this point in time, let's clarify:

Without regard to the method of information transmission, is it strictly the timing and structure of the information flow independent of the physical process which facilitates it which gives rise to conscious experience?

[FirstAscent]

With regard to the rest of what you've said, you really need to read Chalmers. His landmark book is this: http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Search-Fundamental-Philosophy/dp/0195117891/

Absent reading that, how about trying these papers:

http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf

http://consc.net/papers/representation.pdf

Here is the source: http://consc.net/consc-papers.html

[FirstAscent]

A summary of the book:

What is consciousness? How do physical processes in the brain give rise to the self-aware mind and to feelings as profoundly varied as love or hate, aesthetic pleasure or spiritual yearning? These questions today are among the most hotly debated issues among scientists and philosophers, and we have seen in recent years superb volumes by such eminent figures as Francis Crick, Daniel C. Dennett, Gerald Edelman, and Roger Penrose, all firing volleys in what has come to be called the consciousness wars. Now, in The Conscious Mind, philosopher David J. Chalmers offers a cogent analysis of this heated debate as he unveils a major new theory of consciousness, one that rejects the prevailing reductionist trend of science, while offering provocative insights into the relationship between mind and brain.

Writing in a rigorous, thought-provoking style, the author takes us on a far-reaching tour through the philosophical ramifications of consciousness. Chalmers convincingly reveals how contemporary cognitive science and neurobiology have failed to explain how and why mental events emerge from physiological occurrences in the brain. He proposes instead that conscious experience must be understood in an entirely new light--as an irreducible entity (similar to such physical properties as time, mass, and space) that exists at a fundamental level and cannot be understood as the sum of its parts. And after suggesting some intriguing possibilities about the structure and laws of conscious experience, he details how his unique reinterpretation of the mind could be the focus of a new science. Throughout the book, Chalmers provides fascinating thought experiments that trenchantly illustrate his ideas. For example, in exploring the notion that consciousness could be experienced by machines as well as humans, Chalmers asks us to imagine a thinking brain in which neurons are slowly replaced by silicon chips that precisely duplicate their functions--as the neurons are replaced, will consciousness gradually fade away? The book also features thoughtful discussions of how the author's theories might be practically applied to subjects as diverse as artificial intelligence and the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

All of us have pondered the nature and meaning of consciousness. Engaging and penetrating, The Conscious Mind adds a fresh new perspective to the subject that is sure to spark debate about our understanding of the mind for years to come.

[bb113]

3. The timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. Do these phenomena explain consciousness?[/b]
-You are making the assumption that the timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. We need to address why this assumption was made.

Without addressing anything else you have said at this point in time, let's clarify:

Without regard to the method of information transmission, is it strictly the timing and structure of the information flow independent of the physical process which facilitates it which gives rise to conscious experience?

Is there any evidence that the timing and structure of the information flow is independent of physical processes? How does this evidence compare to the evidence that it is dependent?

We have returned to:

Since we will never have complete information about the universe, in the end there will always be an aspect of subjectivity (i.e., more spiritual people will give the unknown process hypothesis a higher prior probability). All we can do is look for support of the hypothesis that experience can be accounted for due to known physical processes. In other words, need more data.

[FirstAscent]

3. The timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. Do these phenomena explain consciousness?[/b]
-You are making the assumption that the timing and magnitudes of information transmission are not tied to physical processes. We need to address why this assumption was made.

Without addressing anything else you have said at this point in time, let's clarify:

Without regard to the method of information transmission, is it strictly the timing and structure of the information flow independent of the physical process which facilitates it which gives rise to conscious experience?

Is there any evidence that the timing and structure of the information flow is independent of physical processes? How does this evidence compare to the evidence that it is dependent?

We're back to panpsychism, Chinese populations, economies, silicon neurons, Turing machines, and Chinese Rooms. I think your synopsis and analysis of the problem and suggestions for methods are premature given your general lack of knowledge regarding discussion on the subject, notably the concepts listed in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Read Chalmers, Searle, Hofstadter, and others.

[bb113]

Chalmers convincingly reveals how contemporary cognitive science and neurobiology have failed to explain how and why mental events emerge from physiological occurrences in the brain.

Yes, the ideal experiments will take forever to perform unless we are lucky or can plan them well. It is no surprise the reductionist approach has thus far failed. This alone does not mean that it cannot succeed, nor that it is not the best approach.

He proposes instead that conscious experience must be understood in an entirely new light--as an irreducible entity (similar to such physical properties as time, mass, and space) that exists at a fundamental level and cannot be understood as the sum of its parts. And after suggesting some intriguing possibilities about the structure and laws of conscious experience, he details how his unique reinterpretation of the mind could be the focus of a new science.

So, consciousness is an emergent property. This does not mean it cannot be understood. There are many phenomena that cannot be understood as the sum of their parts. This does not make them irreducible. That said, the idea that information (energy-entropy, order) is as fundamental (if not more fundamental) a part of the universe as mass, time, and space will get no argument from me.

Is there any evidence that the timing and structure of the information flow is independent of physical processes? How does this evidence compare to the evidence that it is dependent?

We're back to panpsychism, Chinese populations, economies, silicon neurons, Turing machines, and Chinese Rooms. I think your synopsis and analysis of the problem and suggestions for methods are premature given your general lack of knowledge regarding discussion on the subject, notably the concepts listed in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Read Chalmers, Searle, Hofstadter, and others.

That is not evidence, it is a list of systems with large numbers of degrees of freedom. I am interested in the ideas of others, but learn best when I am able to ask questions. You are here and seem to have taken the time to understand these philosophers, they are not accessible to me.

[FirstAscent]

That is not evidence, it is a list of systems with large numbers of degrees of freedom. I am interested in the ideas of others, but learn best when I am able to ask questions. You are here and seem to have taken the time to understand these philosophers, they are not accessible to me.

I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted when you think that I should help you understand these difficult topics when at the same time you dispute and nitpick what I say.

I'll say it again. Read Chalmers. He's not just some random book author on the subject. And that's a major understatement.

[bb113]

Sorry if it comes off as insulting. In my work, it is common for people to question every claim we make. When I let it bleed though, it can come off as insulting. "Dispute and nitpick" = "questioning and trying to put in my own words".

Reading chalmer's may be the ideal thing, but I have limited time. Rather than searching through his work for the passages relevant to what I have said, it would be easier (for me) if you addressed them directly. If I was talking to Chalmer's would he tell me to just read his books? If his response to my specific claims would be so complex as to require a book-length response, then I have to say it is probably convoluted. If you simply don't feel like putting forth the effort to explain it, then ok.

[FirstAscent]

Rather than searching through his work for the passages relevant to what I have said, it would be easier (for me) if you addressed them directly.

This is what is wrong with your methods. You apply the same methodology to your understanding of climate change. Stop looking for passages relevant to what you are looking for. You're not going to prove anything to anyone, least of all yourself, by applying selective choice to your assimilation of knowledge.

Reading Chalmers (or books on climate change) is not an endeavor engaged in for the purpose of answering some specific and most likely ill defined question that you have posed to yourself. Instead, it's about gaining an invisible companion for ten or so hours, as he or she tells you stories and shares with you their thought processes, in a complete argument which is greater than the sum of the parts.

If I was talking to Chalmer's would he tell me to just read his books?

He would only have so much patience with you, and be more than right when he says he has limited time, given that you just made that claim yourself. Respect others. Your claim about limited time is a little hypocritical.

If his response to my specific claims would be so complex as to require a book-length response, then I have to say it is probably convoluted. If you simply don't feel like putting forth the effort to explain it, then ok.

I enjoy discussion. But that discussion becomes more enjoyable when the other party finally realizes that there is a treasure trove of wonderful information out there that deserves to be consumed in whole, rather than in snippets.

Furthermore, technical articles on the subject become more useful and meaningful (and I mean snippets and phrases as well) when one has read whole primers on the subject first.

On biodiversity, read:
Edward O. Wilson
John Terborgh
Dave Foreman

On climate change, read:
Tim Flannery
Paul Ehrlich

On consciousness, read:
David Chalmers
John Searle
Douglas Hofstadter
Daniel Dennett

[bb113]

This is what is wrong with your methods. You apply the same methodology to your understanding of climate change. Stop looking for passages relevant to what you are looking for. You're not going to prove anything to anyone, least of all yourself, by applying selective choice to your assimilation of knowledge.

Reading Chalmers (or books on climate change) is not an endeavor engaged in for the purpose of answering some specific and most likely ill defined question that you have posed to yourself. Instead, it's about gaining an invisible companion for ten or so hours, as he or she tells you stories and shares with you their thought processes, in a complete argument which is greater than the sum of the parts.

Well at least we are both consistent.

I think your way of understanding is faulty, you think mine is. To each their own I guess. I would say that you are also applying selective choice in assimilating knowledge. It is a necessary problem due to having a limited time on this earth. The real choice is how to spend it. I choose to focus on how data/arguments fit in my schema and accommodate when the schema no longer works, you seem to assess complete arguments and assimilate them into your schema according to "what satisfies you". Both of us probably dabble in the other (I know I do).

And you are right, Chalmer's would only have so much patience with me. I am the same with others with regards to "alkaline diets" and "sub-clinical candidiasis," etc. That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions. I probably will read chalmers one day though.

[FirstAscent]

This is what is wrong with your methods. You apply the same methodology to your understanding of climate change. Stop looking for passages relevant to what you are looking for. You're not going to prove anything to anyone, least of all yourself, by applying selective choice to your assimilation of knowledge.

Reading Chalmers (or books on climate change) is not an endeavor engaged in for the purpose of answering some specific and most likely ill defined question that you have posed to yourself. Instead, it's about gaining an invisible companion for ten or so hours, as he or she tells you stories and shares with you their thought processes, in a complete argument which is greater than the sum of the parts.

Well at least we are both consistent.

I think your way of understanding is faulty, you think mine is. To each their own I guess. I would say that you are also applying selective choice in assimilating knowledge. It is a necessary problem due to having a limited time on this earth. The real choice is how to spend it. I choose to focus on how data/arguments fit in my schema and accommodate when the schema no longer works, you seem to assess complete arguments and assimilate them into your schema according to "what satisfies you". Both of us probably dabble in the other (I know I do).

And you are right, Chalmer's would only have so much patience with me. I am the same with others with regards to "alkaline diets" and "sub-clinical candidiasis," etc. That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions. I probably will read chalmers one day though.

Fair enough.

The only real problem I have with the above is this:

That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions.

Complex concepts (ecosystems, climate change, philosophy of mind, etc.) are topics which are understood through illustration of numerous subtopics, examples and explanations which are best absorbed by fully reading a treatise articulated by an expert within the field. Your mining of such texts for particular phrases really leaves you no wiser.

Once you've read the following, you'll be in a better position to understand and dissect the information. I recommend the following books:

The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory - David Chalmers
Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness - Daniel Dennett
The Future of Life - Edward O. Wilson
The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth - Tim Flannery
The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment - Paul Ehrlich

[FirstAscent]

I must misunderstand you. Are you claiming Scientific American is proper scientific literature but the IPCC reports are not?

No. I'm claiming that your method of filtering what you read is counter productive and detrimental to your learning.

Is there a review article you recommend?

No. But I have recommended some books for you.

[FirstAscent]

I had a go at discussing consciousness in the Off-Topic forum, since this is the Politics and Society forum. I've never really posted there before, but now, after having watched it for a week or two, I can see its really childish. It's too bad the only reasonably intellectual discussion unrelated to Bitcoin must be shoehorned into the category of Politics and Society.

[FirstAscent]

I am somewhat familiar with philosophical zombies and turing machines. I just learn best by asking questions... So, with regards to experience: Would you say "experience is the result of physical processes"?

Hameroff is the only guy who "gets it" in this group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnS_cT8yLtU

It makes you wonder if the guy who interrupted him in the last part is a philosophical zombie.

[bb113]

Well it looks like hammeroff takes issue with your ordering in the other thread as well.

I scanned this (get the pdf if you can, it is formatted much better):

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

It does not answer my initial question, maybe you can point me in the right direction. All cells have microtubules, so why is it only those in the brain that are giving rise to consciousness?

Also, the analysis of microtuble dynamics in that paper is very simplified, maybe because it was published over a decade ago (I can't say for the physics).

[FirstAscent]

Well it looks like hammeroff takes issue with your ordering in the other thread as well.

No, he does not. Do not confuse symbolic reflection with the fundamental building blocks of consciousness.

I scanned this (get the pdf if you can, it is formatted much better):

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

It does not answer my initial question, maybe you can point me in the right direction. All cells have microtubules, so why is it only those in the brain that are giving rise to consciousness?

First of all, let's be clear. I am neither for or against the theory of microtubules. I think the theory is interesting. With regard to your assessment of my 'ordering' and what Hameroff said in the video I linked to, he was not discussing microtubules.

Secondly, and in answer to your question, why don't you dig up what Hameroff has to say about paramecium?

Finally, and in reference to the first quoted statement of yours in this post, do not confuse your brand of emergence with my ideas. Tell me, at what point does the emergence of consciousness occur?

[bb113]

I was just asking a question geez...

On rewatching the video, Hammeroff says " it (protoconsciousness) has probably been there since the big bang". So I guess he wasn't talking about consciousness per se.

Spier and Thomas also argue that 'microtubules are too unstable to account for consciousness' While this is true of non-neuronal dividing cells, whose microtubules radiate from centrioles and are (as Spier and Thomas describe) dynamically unstable, neurons in the brain don’t divide, their microtubules do not radiate from centrioles, and they do not manifest dynamic instability11. Brain microtubules are quite stable and interlinked in complex cytoskeletal networks.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/freewill.html

Touche. Except that neuronal microtubules do radiate from centrioles and exhibit dynamic instability, (the reference #11 does not exist in that document...) once again this stuff is from the 90's though.

Finally, and in reference to the first quoted statement of yours in this post, do not confuse your brand of emergence with my ideas. Tell me, at what point does the emergence of consciousness occur?

I think there is likely a continuum of "consciousness" so it does not "emerge" at a certain point.

[FirstAscent]

I think there is likely a continuum of "consciousness" so it does not "emerge" at a certain point.

So then you're saying that the fundamental building block of consciousness is there all the way down.

Like this: http://books.google.com/books?id=R6fNPulyndcC&pg=PT82&lpg=PT82&dq=hameroff+proto-consciousness&source=bl&ots=YVoPflad-E&sig=Pf_X0ymAETqFeraIAoCQjsBsyz4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kDZYT_3vFdHIsQLLnNnJDQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=hameroff%20proto-consciousness&f=false

That's the thing. Emergence is bullshit. At least with regard to consciousness. Nature (evolution) merely found a good structure (the brain) to harness what was already there.

[FirstAscent]

That's the thing. Emergence is bullshit. At least with regard to consciousness. Nature (evolution) merely found a good structure (the brain) to harness what was already there.

To be more precise, proto-consciousness would be the fundamental building block of qualia. That alleviates the Hard Problem somewhat, by stating that qualia is fundamental, right down to the core components of the Universe. From there, evolution merely harnessed that trait inherent in the Universe, and evolved structures which amplify and utilize it.

[bb113]

Hmmmmmmmm, I'm not convinced.

I don't understand why the concept of protoconsciousness needs to be introduced.

All matter at the quantum level is thought to be proto-conscious; the brain is but where the potentialities of protoconsciousness might become a full-fledged consciousness

I would say: All matter at the lowest possible level of complexity (quantum, perhaps) interacts with it's environment, the rules by which matter interacts lead to the formation of structures* of increasing complexity. These structures have at least one more degree of freedom in how they can respond the external environment than the sum of the individual degrees of freedom. I would term this "emergence". The brain happens to have a very large set of possible responses packed into a small space, which gives rise to the possibility of human-type consciousness. From our discussions I have come to think of consciousness as a function of degrees of freedom/volume, maybe information density is a better term.


*As a very loose definition: by structure I mean collections of  matter that receive more information about (are more influenced by) within-structure matter than external.

[bb113]

Just found this:

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

[FirstAscent]

Hmmmmmmmm, I'm not convinced.

I don't understand why the concept of protoconsciousness needs to be introduced.

All matter at the quantum level is thought to be proto-conscious; the brain is but where the potentialities of protoconsciousness might become a full-fledged consciousness

I would say: All matter at the lowest possible level of complexity (quantum, perhaps) interacts with it's environment, the rules by which matter interacts lead to the formation of structures* of increasing complexity. These structures have at least one more degree of freedom in how they can respond the external environment than the sum of the individual degrees of freedom. I would term this "emergence". The brain happens to have a very large set of possible responses packed into a small space, which gives rise to the possibility of human-type consciousness. From our discussions I have come to think of consciousness as a function of degrees of freedom/volume, maybe information density is a better term.


*As a very loose definition: by structure I mean collections of  matter that receive more information about (are more influenced by) within-structure matter than external.

Back to emergence after all. Ok.

Degrees of freedom mean nothing with regard to qualia, in my opinion. So do tell me, what is the magic that happens with an extra degree of freedom where there wasn't that extra degree of freedom before? You might as well say that miniature Charlie Chaplins are the extra sauce needed inside the brain for there to be qualia.

[bb113]

The magic is multiplication?

Also I never dismissed "emergence", just that consciousness cannot be said to emerge at a certain point, unless you stratify consciousness.

[FirstAscent]

The magic is multiplication?

Clarify. As in:

1. Amplification
2. The H20 Phenomenon.

Which?

[bb113]

I have no idea what the H2O phenomenon is. Google didn't yield an answer right away. What is it? It sounds like a band.

[FirstAscent]

I have no idea what the H2O phenomenon is. Google didn't yield an answer right away. What is it? It sounds like a band.

Try adding the term consciousness to your Google search. It's a standard concept discussed with regard to consciousness.

[bb113]

I have no idea what the H2O phenomenon is. Google didn't yield an answer right away. What is it? It sounds like a band.

Try adding the term consciousness to your Google search. It's a standard concept discussed with regard to consciousness.

Ha, I added multiplication instead... one minute

[bb113]

The magic is multiplication?

Clarify. As in:

1. Amplification
2. The H20 Phenomenon.

Which?

I think both, or, more fundamentally, amplification. Amplification of the degrees of freedom gives rise to phenomenon such as collections of H2O molecules transparent to certain wavelengths of light. The "amplifier" is

[FirstAscent]

The magic is multiplication?

Clarify. As in:

1. Amplification
2. The H20 Phenomenon.

Which?

I think both, or, more fundamentally, amplification. Amplification of the degrees of freedom gives rise to phenomenon such as collections of H2O molecules transparent to certain wavelengths of light. The "amplifier" is

I'm not sure whether you read the H20 articles on wetness, as opposed to quantum effects. H20 as it pertains to consciousness is the fact that it is unintuitive that it would be wet - i.e. the wetness is an emergent property. Or something like that. The point is, it's different than just amplification.

All that aside, I can only see the prerequisites for qualia as being a fundamental property of the Universe. In other words, I don't buy emergence, except in the sense that particular structures, such as the brain, amplify and harness it in feedback loops and so on.

[bb113]

Why do you think the possibility of emergence is not the prerequisite for qualia?

[bb113]

Just found this:

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Let's change gears:

Perhaps consciousness could be interpreted as the opposite of an event horizon. What do you think?

[FirstAscent]

Why do you think the possibility of emergence is not the prerequisite for qualia?

Because by invoking emergence, you have explained nothing, and made things more complex. That's an indication that you might be on the wrong track.

[FirstAscent]

Just found this:

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Let's change gears:

Perhaps consciousness could be interpreted as the opposite of an event horizon. What do you think?

I will think about what you mean by that and get back to you later. I'm done for the day. Oh, and paramecium have no neurons - they are single celled organisms that can learn and have some semblance of memory.

[FlipPro]

Thank you FirstAscent for your service.

[bb113]

Just found this:

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Let's change gears:

Perhaps consciousness could be interpreted as the opposite of an event horizon. What do you think?

I will think about what you mean by that and get back to you later. I'm done for the day. Oh, and paramecium have no neurons - they are single celled organisms that can learn and have some semblance of memory.

Let me rephrase that to just be: Let us explore how consciousness and event horizons may be related. And I know paramecium have no neurons. Plastic has some semblance of memory, as for learning, I would say no.

[FirstAscent]

Thank you FirstAscent for your service.

Thank you. I assume that you're thanking me for pointing out and explaining that essentially all arguments against global warming can be shown to be deceptive and lacking in sound science and funded by Big Oil, and strangely, instigated by the same individuals who also argued against regulations of the tobacco industry. The implication, of course, is that if there were actually sound science against global warming, it would exist, instead of all the deceptive propaganda out there masquerading as science.

The conclusion: global warming is real, mankind contributes to it, and the science behind it is sound.

[bb113]

Thank you FirstAscent for your service.

Thank you. I assume that you're thanking me for pointing out and explaining that essentially all arguments against global warming can be shown to be deceptive and lacking in sound science and funded by Big Oil, and strangely, instigated by the same individuals who also argued against regulations of the tobacco industry. The implication, of course, is that if there were actually sound science against global warming, it would exist, instead of all the deceptive propaganda out there masquerading as science.

The conclusion: global warming is real, mankind contributes to it, and the science behind it is sound.

.

This is why you spent 20 pages arguing with a strawman

[FirstAscent]

This is why you spent 20 pages arguing with a strawman

Don't confuse illustration, education and explanation with whatever you would like to believe it is.

[FirstAscent]

Let me rephrase that to just be: Let us explore how consciousness and event horizons may be related.

I don't know where to take this.

And I know paramecium have no neurons. Plastic has some semblance of memory, as for learning, I would say no.

Paramecium have memory. Plastic has memory. Tall buildings have stories. Novelists have stories.

However, I will admit I am not an expert on paramecium. Are you? Feel free to find scholarly papers on the study of learning among paramecium. I might engage in similar activity.

[bb113]

No, I am not an expert in paramecium. I can guess how "memory" would work though based off how mammalian cells function.

[bb113]

IN THE LETTER “NEUROSCIENCE AND THE
soul” (27 February, p. 1168), M. J. Farah and
N. Murphy state that eventually neuroscience
and the material system it describes may be
able to explain all facets of being human. This
idea strikes me as a somewhat naïve and simple
faith in scientific progress rather than an
accurate assessment of current thinking on
this issue. Some years ago, the philosopher
David Chalmers referred to the problem of
consciousness (how physical processes in the
brain give rise to subjective experience) as the
“hard problem” (1). We are no closer to knowing
or understanding how this happens today,
so the problem remains hard and should be
acknowledged as hard. In the absence of such
understanding, personal opinions and beliefs
about this question should not be presented as
genuine knowledge.

Haha, the guy who wrote this (it's a letter to Science) is on my dissertation committee. Apparently he is a fan of Chalmer's as well. I definitely agree with the last line.

[FirstAscent]

The first rule about discussing consciousness: Acknowledge that Chalmers is required reading, understand Chalmers' viewpoints, and go from there. Chalmers' work is really important.