global warming denial

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

So what makes you think that's a good thing?

Well, let's see...increased oxygen production, absorbtion of the CO₂ gasses, an increase in natural habitats for many animal species...there are all sorts of advantages to having more trees. What would make you think it's a bad thing?

Grasses are highly evolved to use carbon dioxide efficiently. Ecological balances between grasses and other plants will be destroyed if the grasses' advantage is diminished.

Oh, well, we're in luck then:

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/greener.htm

A team of Swiss and Portuguese scientists grew ryegrass in open fields near Zurich where atmospheric CO2 levels were maintained at 350 ppm and 600 ppm. Here’s a twist: the scientists stayed with their experiment for six years. Daepp et al. found that after the first year the grass increased its dry weight by seven percent. By the sixth year, dry weight had risen to 25 percent thanks to higher CO2 concentrations. Their result suggests that all those one and two year studies we’ve cited as evidence of a benefit from higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may in fact grossly underestimate it.

Another Swiss team (including some researchers from the experiment just described) grew various grasses in 1994 and 1995 in an open field where they maintained atmospheric CO2 concentrations at ambient and near-twice ambient levels. When the grass grew under conditions where there were low levels of nitrogen, the grassland increased its overall biomass by 13 percent. Under high nitrogen conditions, the grasses revealed a 30 percent increase in response to higher CO2. When last we checked, nitrogen was not in short supply, so our pastoral future looks mighty green.

Van Ginkel grew this same ryegrass specie for 115 days in growth chambers with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm, after which some chambers had their temperature increased by 2°C for 230 days. The researchers observed that elevated CO2 substantially increased root biomass and wrote, "Root biomass is the driving parameter for all subsequent below-ground processes in our plant-soil system." (Layman’s translation: Increased root biomass is good news for plants.) Further, beneficial microbial biomass increased by 46 percent under elevated CO2 conditions. Finally, increased temperature appeared to have little negative effect on the benefits resulting from higher CO2. Put another way, ryegrass grown under elevated carbon dioxide concentrations withstands higher temperature better than it does under current concentrations.

How can you be stupid enough to believe that you've made a viable point?

 

[RandFan]

Exactly Sundog. That's because (presumably) none of us are climatologists; all we can do is rely on expert opinion. As for the deniers:

We could debate "vast" I suppose. Fine, let's just say majority. Does it bother you that a majority of scientific thought considers there to be a reasonable possibility that global disaster will occur? What odds do you need before you are concerned?

Vast? Yeah, we could debate that. We could even debate majority. We HAVE been debating it. Where have you been? Did you decide to just dismiss all that has been posted?

You know, I think that you have made a testable claim? If I understand it right you are saying that a majority of experts believe that humans are significantly causing global warming and that warming will have disasterous efffects.

Is that correct?

If it is could you please substantiate that claim?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Well, let's see...increased oxygen production, absorbtion of the CO₂ gasses, an increase in natural habitats for many animal species...there are all sorts of advantages to having more trees. What would make you think it's a bad thing?

No, there'd be a massive decrease in natural habitats. The plants that grew more quickly would begin to crowd out the other plants, and you'd quickly have clusters of monocultures popping up. That's generally not conductive to ecological diversity.

You sound rather like the conservative thinktank at www.co2science.org . Oi.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Okay:



Yes, I think that is very much a rational, well-thought out post that deserves an honest answer.



Since you're the one who is instantly applying labels such as "left-wing" to anything he doesn't agree with, it seems to me you're placing yourself in the second group.

Well, I gave you a chance. How dishonest you are! You know perfectly well I'm referring to this:

How did you get that from what he said? Thank you for admitting that your viewpoint is politically motivated, not scientifically motivated.


This was your first comment on the subject, so don't accuse me of starting the politics. And no, it isn't worthy of a response.

Sorry, please just ignore me from now on, I don't think we have anything to talk about.

 

[shanek]

1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now.

I fully and completely disagree. The default position of a skeptic should ALWAYS be "I don't know."

Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't base our conclusions off of it.

I don't see how you can argue with this and still call yourself a skeptic.

That's funny; I don't see how you can make an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity and call yourself a skeptic.

But you know what, let's say for the moment that you're right, a skeptic should start off with the idea that a consensus of scientific experts is probably right. Why, then, does it follow, as it seems to do in this thread, that the skeptics should not be expected to question the findings of those scientists and be able to ask questions and have a reasonable expectation of them being answered?

For the record, my beef is NOT with the only scientific consensus there appears to be on this subject: The cooler regions of the Earth are warming up, causing an increase in average temperatures, and humans are probably contributing to this effect. The parts I have been arguing against have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this consensus viewpoint.

This is not argument from authority.

Sure it is.

2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory.

But not the catastrophic ramifications many people are concluding from it. If by "global warming" you mean a rise in average global temperatures which are most likely due at least in part by mankind's actions, then you're going to get no argument from me. But people want to leap from that to global catastrophy, which just isn't warranted.

I am honestly bewildered by people who assume our politics enter into this.

Look at the Kyoto treaty and tell me how that isn't just pure politics. And many prominent climatologists who never even thought about debunking Global Warming have come out against Kyoto, saying that it will cause great harm for very little benefit.

I am not a scientist. I am not entitled to an opinion. You are not a scientist. You are not entitled to an opinion!

Total and complete bull$#!7.

This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming?

Don't ask me; I'm not a conservative.

 

[Sundog]

I fully and completely disagree. The default position of a skeptic should ALWAYS be "I don't know."

LOL. Must be a confusing way to go through life.

OK, no problem, we can't even agree on point 1, so we have nothing to talk about. I don't discuss science with woo-woos.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Well, I gave you a chance. How dishonest you are!

Deceitful? I looked, at YOUR REQUEST, at my first post in this thread. Which you snipped and ignored.

You know perfectly well I'm referring to this:

That was a comment to YOUR straw-man representation of Kodiak's claim, making it out as if he thought SciAm was "left-wing." YOU injected the politics into that; I merely responded to it.

This was your first comment on the subject,

No, it wasn't. The one I quoted was my first response on the subject.

so don't accuse me of starting the politics.

I WILL, because YOU made the "left-wing" crack in the post I was responding to! YOU said:

So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?

When Kodiak had made no comment coming anywhere near such a claim. YOU injected the politics, not me.

Sorry, please just ignore me from now on, I don't think we have anything to talk about.

Guess not. I want to discuss the EVIDENCE. You, apparently, don't.

 

[shanek]

LOL. Must be a confusing way to go through life.

That's the skeptical way. However confusing you think it might be, it's the only way that seems to avoid being taken in by bull$#!7, to the point where you have to resort to political name-calling and strawman arguments to make your point.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Sundog:
1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process.

And such a consensus about human induced global warming exists?

Pretend we are discussing ESP instead of global warming. Really, go through the arguments. What would you call a person who used your arguments as defense of ESP?

There's an absence of scientifically verifiable and reproducible evidence that ESP exists, thus any defense of ESP will be necessarily handicapped by this fact. OTOH questioning the novelty of global warming, it's effects and suggested remedies is a reasonable position to take, given the scientific uncertainty surrounding global warming and the effect human activity has on it.

 

[Sundog]

Vast? Yeah, we could debate that. We could even debate majority. We HAVE been debating it. Where have you been? Did you decide to just dismiss all that has been posted?

You know, I think that you have made a testable claim? If I understand it right you are saying that a majority of experts believe that humans are significantly causing global warming and that warming will have disasterous efffects.

Is that correct?

If it is could you please substantiate that claim?

I made the claim first; pick on me.

That's just my impression. I haven't counted heads. Just as it's your impression that a sizeable number disagree.

Let me get your position clear. Which do you agree with:

1. A majority of the world's scientists believe in GW, but they're wrong.

or

2. A majority of the world's scientists do not accept GW.

or something else?

 

[RandFan]

1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process.

Assuming that there is a consensus then that consensus should be based on testable theories, right? If we dispute these theories someone should be able to respond to the dispute, right?

I don't see how you can argue with this and still call yourself a skeptic. If you have a beef with this, you have a beef with science itself. If you disagree, you will suddenly find Interesting Ian congratulating you for having the courage to challenge all the scientific charlatans.

The argument is fallacious. I have every right to question any held belief. You have the responsibility to answer those questions or bow out of the discussion. Not dismiss my arguments because you "presume" that my arguments are not reconcilable with science.

This is not argument from authority. I don't think even Bill would call it that. The consensus of a group of people on a subject they above all others have an informed opinion on is not argument from authority.

The preceding is a claim. You have posted this claim in a skeptics forum. When you make such claims in such a forum it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that claim not accuse others of arguing against authority.

If we can't agree on at least this, we really can't talk.

If you are so dogmatic as to not address the arguments and rely only on a supposed specious argument that there is a consensus then you are right. There is nothing to talk about.

2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory. I realize that this is the most contentious point of all. Can we agree that, if this becomes clearly so even to you, that you will change your position?

Can I see the evidence first?

3. I am honestly bewildered by people who assume our politics enter into this. Folks, I see a consensus of the world's scientists very, very worried about this.

That is fine, could you show us so that we can respond to what it is that you see?

I see the US making contingency security plans based on "what if it's true".

Does not prove anything.

When someone asserts that I have come to my conclusions because I'm simply anti-Bush, or because I have some sort of general tree-hugger attitude, I am honestly astonished. If you have snide comments to make about this, keep them to yourself.

I have great respect for you sundog. I just want evidence. I'm skeptical that way. Sorry.

On the other hand, every time I have seen a "scientist" arguing against the theory, it's been some obvious blustering right-wing type on Fox or something similar. Maybe I just haven't seen all the respected scientists who don't accept the theory.

So everyone on fox is not credible?

Wow, talk about ad hominem. Sundog, an expert should be judged based on the quality of his arguments not the channel he appears on.

4. I am not a scientist. I am not entitled to an opinion. You are not a scientist. You are not entitled to an opinion!

Wow, Marconi was not a scientist. By this logic Marconi was not entitled to an opinion. Yet he proved all of the scientists wrong, didn't he?

Fallacious argument.

All we CAN do is try to follow the arguments of those who actually know what they're talking about, and to rely on point 1 above.

This is so wrong I can't believe it. NO, in light of the fact that there is significant scientific evidence I am entitled to form my own opinion.

5. This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming? What possible reason can there be except political motivation? I and many others just don't get it. It seems clear to me that what unifies you is simply an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with.

You have no more reason to accuse me of politics than I do of you.

Pretend we are discussing ESP instead of global warming. Really, go through the arguments. What would you call a person who used your arguments as defense of ESP?

There is NO counter evidence to ESP. There is real scientific evidence that refutes your contention.

Come on Sundog. This is not warranted.

Good day to you all, I probably won't have much time the rest of the day.

You have a good day also. When you have some time could you please respond to my questions and request for data and proof of your claims?

Sundog, you don't get a default position of being right. Skepticism gives me the right to question your held beliefs and those of scientists particularly when there is significant counter data.

 

[Sundog]

Sundog, you don't get a default position of being right. Skepticism gives me the right to question your held beliefs and those of scientists particularly when there is significant counter data.

I think I made a wrong decision after all.

 

[RandFan]

I made the claim first; pick on me.

That's just my impression. I haven't counted heads. Just as it's your impression that a sizeable number disagree.

Let me get your position clear. Which do you agree with:

1. A majority of the world's scientists believe in GW, but they're wrong.

or

2. A majority of the world's scientists do not accept GW.

or something else?

Thanks for the "something else"?

A significant number of credible scientists have real data that disputes or calls into question the following:

1.) That the earth is warming.

2.) If the earth is warming that it is caused chiefly or significantly by humans.

3.) If the earth is warming that it will not reverse at some point and or that it will have catastrophic effects.

 

[RandFan]

I think I made a wrong decision after all.

Hey, no sad faces. Which decision was wrong? There is nothing to take personally, at least not from me. This is simply a discussion. If I said something that upset you please accept my apology.

 

[Earthborn]

1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process.

And what if there is no consensus?

2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory.

I don't think this is true. It seems to me that the consensus of the world's scientists seems to be that global warming is a very serious probability, it cannot be ignored, but there are still different explanations possible, different possible future outcomes and even if the warming is permantent thing and it will get warmer in the next century, that the impact of that on the environment is uncertain.

Folks, I see a consensus of the world's scientists very, very worried about this.

The fact that they are worried does not mean they know of what is going to happen.

When someone asserts that I have come to my conclusions because I'm simply anti-Bush, or because I have some sort of general tree-hugger attitude, I am honestly astonished.

Well, aren't you? Aren't you an anti-Bush treehugger? Come on, you can tell me. I'm a bit myself!

On the other hand, every time I have seen a "scientist" arguing against the theory, it's been some obvious blustering right-wing type on Fox or something similar. Maybe I just haven't seen all the respected scientists who don't accept the theory.

Sundog, meet Philip Stott, Philip Stott, meet Sundog.

Okay, okay, I admit he is a bit of an opinionated person. But I think he makes a few good arguments, and I doubt he's a right winger.

All we CAN do is try to follow the arguments of those who actually know what they're talking about, and to rely on point 1 above.

Well, yes. So since the people who do know what they are talking about seem trapped in controversy, we limit ourselves to challenging those who claim they have figured it all out.

5. This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming?

Isn't it obvious. If we assume that global warming is real, caused by humans and can be solved by humans, then obviously we have to change things to solve it. Conservatives want to keep things the same, so will try to cast doubt on the necessity of change.

It seems clear to me that what unifies you is simply an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with.

Probably that too.

 

[shanek]

Assuming that there is a consensus then that consensus should be based on testable theories, right? If we dispute these theories someone should be able to respond to the dispute, right?

[snip]

RandFan, can I just say it's great to have you back?

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, can I just say it's great to have you back?

Thanks, but I should let you know that I'm still not prepared for that debate on minimum wage.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

That was an interesting site, Earthborn, but I'll admit that I stopped reading after coming across a statement that the world's ecosystems are normally in a state of change, so we can't upset any equilibria.

Perhaps the rest of his arguments are better than that, but that's a very basic error.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Isn't it obvious. If we assume that global warming is real, caused by humans and can be solved by humans, then obviously we have to change things to solve it. Conservatives want to keep things the same, so will try to cast doubt on the necessity of change.

Earthborn, you're brilliant. Concise and to the point.

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal and alter his positions.



For example

I see that your link is to a rightwing thinktank known as the "NCPA" "National Center for Policy Analysis"


The people in the NCPA are among many organizations against the idea of gloabal warming.

They use data from "Oil Companeis" which of course is most likely to have a pro oil comany bias.

Look at people that are actually really studying the effects of global warming and are not publishing crackpot ideas like your "industry scientists" are.


Face it, give some government studies or some studies from a nonbiased institute, or make yourself look like a complete fool in front of the entire forum.


Have a nice day.