Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

casebro said:
That is not even considering that a warmer climate and higher ocean levels just might make Earth a nicer place, rather than the doom and gloom prophesies that some believe.
Click to expand...

And that rather defines wishful thinking. Research to date seems to show that plants don't do really well on increased CO2; that insect pests are more of a problem; that the amount of area of temperate forest climate (with the best mix for fertile farming) will decrease. True, London will be the new Riviera.
 
Last edited:
Bokonon

a) to judge something you need to know something about it .....you've continually demonstrated you don't understand earth geo-systems

b) evolution is not influenced in any significant way by human activites en masse tho certainly we have been breeding for eons
...AGW is directly a result.....that's the the A stands for :garfield:

c) in light of THAT - climate scientists can ONLY offer ranges of outcome based on various scenarios of human emissions...450 ppm to 880 ppm.

Like this

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Bokonon, in Science, we never, ever say more than "most likely."

Even with Evolution.

Even with genetics.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

"The light we observe is caused by luciferin and luciferase produced by the firefly."

"The higher mean temperature we observe is most likely caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels."

BenBurch said:
Yes, all science we now know rules out any other cause.
Click to expand...
More nonsense.

Other possible causes include increased insolation produced by cyclical or chaotic variations in the earth's orbit or inclination, changes in weather patterns caused by plate tectonics/deforestation/man-made structures, cyclical changes caused by the rotation of the galaxy, incremental changes caused by the approach of the Andromeda galaxy, statistical noise, and a dozen other possibilities.

The Sahara was wet and green relatively recently. It changed significantly, but not because people burned fossil fuels. Claiming that a warmer world is demonstrably caused by CO2 simply because you can't think of any other reason is a fallacy.

If it is true that carbon dioxide is the cause, that doesn't mean that the computer programs predicting this or that outcome are accurate.

Determining how accurate any given model is before passing laws which assume the accuracy of that model isn't just politics, it's prudent policy. That's why there is still a debate.
 
BenBurch said:
Oh, and bokonon, it is false to say that evolutionists make no predictions.

Darwin made several...

And they have in turn been proven to be correct.

Here is a classic one;

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461530192_761578331_1_1/Darwin's_Hawk_Moth.html
Click to expand...

BenBurch said:
More smackdown to the "evolutionists make no predictions" nonsense;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
Click to expand...

None are predictions about the future, sorry. They're more like Einstein's prediction that light would be found to bend around the sun, because that was something that had already happened and was happening now.

Evolutionists aren't writing computer programs and publishing papers that say, "Based on our models, 17% of existing species will still be reproducing in 30306, 54% of existing species will be extinct, and 5% will be species which are unknown to us today. With a margin of error of ..."

Predictive climate science is like predictive economic science. Both are more smoke and mirrors than anything I'd hang my hat on.
 
macdoc said:
you've continually demonstrated you don't understand earth geo-systems
Click to expand...
I've continually demonstrated that you don't understand the links you cite to support your position, which often turn out to be support for mine instead.
 
Yeah, bokonon, they were predictions about the future. Did you not read the talk origins link? Predictions about how thing will evolve and that they will evolve at all are central to medicine.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you ths, but the crap you choose to believe about science on general and AGW in specific is a load of bollocks. It has exactly as much factual basis and intellectual credibility as Creation Science, AIDS denial, or fossil fuel depletion denial, and shares intellectual roots with all of those dishonest ideas.
 
bokonon said:
Many of the measures being proposed can be justified by arguments other than "global warming".
Click to expand...

Quite true and as such they are measures that I see no reason we shouldn't be supporting regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum or even whether we have doubts about AGW. I'd consider measures that will help moderate AGW and, on the off chance AGW is not a problem, will still provide other significant benefits, like less dependence on fossil fuels, to be win-win propositions. Yet the US still struggles to get these types of measures enacted. Very disappointing.

I'm a skeptic because the evidence I've seen has not convinced me that the situation is as dire as is being portrayed by the folks sounding the alarm.

Whether they are Chicken Littles or Cassandras will, I trust, become more evident with the passage of time.
Click to expand...

Understood, but I can't help but think you're at a point that many climatologists reached 15+ years ago. There's much more evidence now to suggest that AGW is very real, thus many climatologists have moved on from the question of "is AGW happening?" because the bulk of the evidence says yes. Now they're putting more resources into figuring out what to do about it.
 
Last edited:
bokonon said:
Claiming that a warmer world is demonstrably caused by CO2 simply because you can't think of any other reason is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I would invoke Holmes remark to Watson about what's left after you discount the possible, but I never trusted that line myself, anyway. However, there is theory about why a rise in CO2 would cause increased temperatures (first published at the turn of the 20th century), there are measurements, and now there are observed effects in the real world. If evolution had that last, then the creationists would all be gasping for air. Your remark about "no other reason" is rather egregiously wrong and demonstrates more about your attitude than your knowledge.

Further, there are digital computer models. You and Poptech have problems with them, but I suspect that neither of you knows the scope or nature of that alleged problem, and so your biases are attacking the data, rather than the other way around. They only make predictions, and until you actually experience the predicted phenomena then it is a cheap shot to simply discount the models because they don't go where you want to go.

In a related thread, I just went and watched a TED talk given by climatologist David Keith. He suggests a not-so-novel but unusual approach, but of interest in this thread is the graph he puts up near the start that shows modelling predictions about where temperatures in the current time period would go. The talk is at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html . It would be appreciated that if you want to talk models hereafter, you come equiped with either firm computer science-climatological or philosophical reasons for your mistrust which can be debated.
 
BenBurch said:
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you ths, but the crap you choose to believe about science on general and AGW in specific is a load of bollocks. It has exactly as much factual basis and intellectual credibility as Creation Science, AIDS denial, or fossil fuel depletion denial, and shares intellectual roots with all of those dishonest ideas.
Click to expand...
Not a problem for me, as I recognize the fallacy of conflating unrelated ideas in an attempt to smear by association.

Skepticism about AGW -- ESPECIALLY as regards predicted effects -- shares no significant roots with Creation Science, and you can do better than this kind of flailing.
 
BenBurch said:
Oh, and bokonon, it is false to say that evolutionists make no predictions.

Darwin made several...

And they have in turn been proven to be correct.
Click to expand...


You know, I seem to recall Bokonon saying that until Climate science can make predictions about the future and we wait for 50 years to see if they turn out to be correct he wasn’t going to be convinced.

Now, that he is saying Evolution makes no predictions at all, doesn’t that mean he will never be convinced about it?
 
bokonon said:
Not a problem for me, as I recognize the fallacy of conflating unrelated ideas in an attempt to smear by association.

Skepticism about AGW -- ESPECIALLY as regards predicted effects -- shares no significant roots with Creation Science, and you can do better than this kind of flailing.
Click to expand...
Actually it isn't failing. Judging from that article they share in a lot of the same techniques to confuse the issue.
 
patrick767 said:
Quite true and as such they are measures that I see no reason we shouldn't be supporting regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum or even whether we have doubts about AGW.
Click to expand...
I do support some things. As I said, I'd like to increase taxes on gasoline, to give people an incentive to use less of it, even though such a policy would affect me personally. On the other hand, I think the idea of selling "carbon credits" is silly, and don't support such schemes, even though (as far as I can tell) I'd neither be buying nor selling them myself.

patrick767 said:
I'd consider measures that will help moderate AGW and, on the off chance AGW is not a problem, will still provide other significant benefits, like less dependence on fossil fuels, to be win-win propositions.
Click to expand...
So do I. I wouldn't want to see coal-fired power plants belching particulates into the atmosphere, and think (at least in this country) we should ensure they don't by regulating and inspecting.

I'm less concerned if they're belching CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere, because I'm doing that myself.

patrick767 said:
Understood, but I can't help but think you're at a point that many climatologists reached 15+ years ago. There's much more evidence now to suggest that AGW is very real, thus many climatologists have moved on from the question of "is AGW happening?" because the bulk of the evidence says yes. Now they're putting more resources into figuring out what to do about it.
Click to expand...
You may be right that I'm a decade and a half behind the times, but even if it is very real, I'd prefer to see "should we be doing ANYTHING about it?" on the table alongside all the other options being considered.

I don't think the computer models can predict climate any better than they predict the economy, and they have a longer track record of attempting the latter.
 
bokonon said:
Not a problem for me, as I recognize the fallacy of conflating unrelated ideas in an attempt to smear by association.

Skepticism about AGW -- ESPECIALLY as regards predicted effects -- shares no significant roots with Creation Science, and you can do better than this kind of flailing.
Click to expand...

No, bokonon, it all comes from far-right-wing conservatism. Both are political tools used by the Right to manipulate the electorate. Both exist and get press for basically that reason alone. Suck up to the Massey Energy Company if you like, that is your right, but don't come here and pretend that its "science."

"Skepticism" about predicted effects, when its HONEST skepticism, involves debating where AGW will fall on the continuum between significant problem and full-on calamity. The brand of woo you are peddling is the sort that said that the Ozone Layer would be "just fine" and that CFCs were not a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom