Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[DC]

for those looking for a good source that is free of ideology.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UV0yDKE6mM8

here are some reports, working Group 1 contains absolutely no ideology or politics. only science. ist a very good start. much to read, but that's to be expected.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't really get all of this hate coming from people like macdoc who hold the status quo as an unquestionable dogmatic truth.

Would you accuse those who accept the reality of evolution as "holding the status quo as an unquestionable dogmatic truth" and the frustration they understandably show when arguing with creationists as "hate"?

Some people on this thread will deeply resent that comparison, but it really is an accurate one.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

ist a very srious Problem, the science is known for decades now, the IPCC provides well written reports every few years that Show the latest findings made in climatology. everyone can get those reports and read them.

but instead you mostly get ignorant People making Claims and contradicting Mainstream scientific positions that are not controversial in science and well established. some even go as far as claiming CO2 is no greenhosue gas or that there is no greenhouse effect. and most of them are merely parroting denier Blogs like WUWT without taking the time to do real reading into the Topic.
so the hostility is understandable i think. many People here are dealing with this since many years.

Well it's one thing to demonstrate your position conclusively, but it's another thing to play doctor banjo (from futurama) and get pissed off when somebody dares question your take on the matter.

I explained my position rather well, and he turns around immediately throwing feces at me followed by trying to prove global warming to me even though I never claimed there was no global warming. I don't think he even read my post very much to be honest, he never even addressed the key contention I made.

 

[Pixel42]

Would anyone like to offer an opinion on the just the facts global warming site? I can't type out the url because I'm new and not allowed but I think anyone should be able to find it.

I'm not familiar with that one, but I'll take a look at it later.

Are you familiar with the Open University? They have two courses on climate change, an introductory one requiring about 6 hours of study and an intermediate one which is 18 hours. Both are available on their OpenLearn website, i.e. you can study them without charge and without enrolling. I'll dig the links out if you're interested.

 

[macdoc]

Yup - if you haven't figured out the situation by now AD you are part of the problem and from all the evidence you've presented so far.....ill informed...either by accident or design.

Belly up, take responsibility and move on to the myriad of issues that need to be addressed as rather benign Holocene climate regime shifts to the much more erratic and extreme Anthropocene.
and don't drag right wing denier crap into a science forum....we've seen it all and it gets infinitely wearisome.

On the other hand....elucidating the choices that face the first world are not open to easy answers.

Facing the consequences

Global action is not going to stop climate change. The world needs to look harder at how to live with it

http://www.economist.com/node/17572735

Instead, from all evidence you've presented...you still doubt there is a problem...and you wonder why you get vitriole???!!!

The underlying message.....just how blind can you be?

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Would you accuse those who accept the reality of evolution as "holding the status quo as an unquestionable dogmatic truth" and the frustration they understandably show when arguing with creationists as "hate"?

Some people on this thread will deeply resent that comparison, but it really is an accurate one.

The only ones that annoy me actually are the ones who are hostile to those who subscribe to evolution. Much like the guy here is hostile to me for having the "I know there's global warming, it will probably cause discomfort, but I'm not concerned about it and here's why" position.

Actually it turns out that the things I do on a daily basis happen to work out towards his cause. I love fuel efficient cars because I don't like paying for gas. I use LED bulbs because they keep my electricity bill down. I like nuclear power because it is cheap, and we are fortunate to have built a nuclear power plant in my area long before the environmentalists made it cost prohibitive to do so anymore. All of those reduce the dreaded carbon footprint. I can say very honestly that I have a very low carbon footprint compared to most people in the developed world, but it has nothing to do with environmentalism.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Yup - if you haven't figured out the situation by now AD you are part of the problem and from all the evidence you've presented so far.....ill informed...either by accident or design.

Belly up, take responsibility and move on to the myriad of issues that need to be addressed as rather benign Holocene climate regime shifts to the much more erratic and extreme Anthropocene.
and don't drag right wing denier crap into a science forum....we've seen it all and it gets infinitely wearisome.

On the other hand....elucidating the choices that face the first world are not open to easy answers.



http://www.economist.com/node/17572735

Instead, from all evidence you've presented...you still doubt there is a problem...and you wonder why you get vitriole???!!!

The underlying message.....just how blind can you be?

Well if I'm part of the problem, then how come you just ignored the short piece I wrote about how the environmentalism movement is actively going against what you term "responsible" behavior? I mean you're calling me blind, yet every perfectly valid point I make you just dismiss as if it was never there. For a forum that's supposed to be for thinkers, you don't do very much of that.

 

[DC]

Well it's one thing to demonstrate your position conclusively, but it's another thing to play doctor banjo (from futurama) and get pissed off when somebody dares question your take on the matter.

I explained my position rather well, and he turns around immediately throwing feces at me followed by trying to prove global warming to me even though I never claimed there was no global warming. I don't think he even read my post very much to be honest, he never even addressed the key contention I made.

Well it's one thing to express your doubt after informing yourself properly and providing good reasons to have the doubts but another when merely repeating the usual Long debunked nonsense from denier Blogs.

 

[DC]

Well if I'm part of the problem, then how come you just ignored the short piece I wrote about how the environmentalism movement is actively going against what you term "responsible" behavior? I mean you're calling me blind, yet every perfectly valid point I make you just dismiss as if it was never there. For a forum that's supposed to be for thinkers, you don't do very much of that.

People irrational fear of Nuclear energy has nothing to do at all with Climate science.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Well it's one thing to express your doubt after informing yourself properly and providing good reasons to have the doubts but another when merely repeating the usual Long debunked nonsense from denier Blogs.

Ok what did I repeat from the denier blogs?

 

[ArmoredDragon]

People irrational fear of Nuclear energy has nothing to do at all with Climate science.

For the most part, you are spot on. Except there are two key areas where they intertwine:

- The environmentalist movement is the biggest driving force against nuclear energy.
- Nuclear power goes a long ways towards reducing the carbon footprint that climate scientists are concerned with.

 

[DC]

The only ones that annoy me actually are the ones who are hostile to those who subscribe to evolution. Much like the guy here is hostile to me for having the "I know there's global warming, it will probably cause discomfort, but I'm not concerned about it and here's why" position.

Actually it turns out that the things I do on a daily basis happen to work out towards his cause. I love fuel efficient cars because I don't like paying for gas. I use LED bulbs because they keep my electricity bill down. I like nuclear power because it is cheap, and we are fortunate to have built a nuclear power plant in my area long before the environmentalists made it cost prohibitive to do so anymore. All of those reduce the dreaded carbon footprint. I can say very honestly that I have a very low carbon footprint compared to most people in the developed world, but it has nothing to do with environmentalism.

those are merely a few Points. do you use your car only when really needed? do you also use public Transport or walk sometimes?
where is your Food coming from? cheap from all over the world, or maybe a bit more costly but from local production? where are your other goods from?

and even if you have a low footprint compared to other developed nations, how does your footprint compare to the average chinese or Indian Person? or maybe even a 3rd world Country?

we still have a very Long way to go to solve the Problem.

 

[DC]

For the most part, you are spot on. Except there are two key areas where they intertwine:

- The environmentalist movement is the biggest driving force against nuclear energy.
- Nuclear power goes a long ways towards reducing the carbon footprint that climate scientists are concerned with.

yes, so? still has nothing to do with climate science.

 

[Pixel42]

Ok what did I repeat from the denier blogs?

Well you did seem to endorse the 70s cooling myth, even though there had been two posts clarifying what really happened between Barking Spyder bringing it up and your agreeing with it. That's a real favourite on the denier blogs.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

those are merely a few Points. do you use your car only when really needed? do you also use public Transport or walk sometimes?

Yes and yes. I'm not really a car person, and I like cycling. I cycle in spite of triple digit temperatures and most things I do being far away. For the most part, I only have to drive somewhere twice a week.

where is your Food coming from? cheap from all over the world, or maybe a bit more costly but from local production? where are your other goods from?

Honestly I can't tell you where it comes from, but I do know this: My state produces more food than it consumes. The notoriously hot climate here actually works quite well for that purpose; you can grow almost anything here. (You see that?)

and even if you have a low footprint compared to other developed nations, how does your footprint compare to the average chinese or Indian Person? or maybe even a 3rd world Country?

I don't know, I haven't looked. But I do know that Beijing is a big polluted hellhole whereas my city is very clean.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Well you did seem to endorse the 70s cooling myth, even though there had been two posts clarifying what really happened between Barking Spyder bringing it up and your agreeing with it. That's a real favourite on the denier blogs.

I wasn't endorsing that so much as saying I agree with his view about people being rather hostile here. I mean look, I'm getting accused of saying or believing things I've never actually said or believed.

Just look at my words and my points directly: What am I saying that is repeated on these "denier blogs"? I don't actually read any blogs at all, by the way. I just never really found anybody's daily political musings or daily life happenings particularly interesting.

The closest to reading blogs is that occasionally I'll sometimes take a peek at Penn Jillette's twitter feed, but very rarely.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

yes, so? still has nothing to do with climate science.

Well I'm not sure what we're debating then. I haven't thus far made any claims strictly about climate science. My comments are entirely centered around what we're supposed to do about it. In fact, the piece you are replying to says nothing at all about climate science, rather it is directed entirely at the environmentalist movement, or more specifically what macdoc refers to as responsible behavior. I'm not quite sure how you derived any climate science references from that.

In other words, what point are you trying to make with that statement towards debating anything I've said?

 

[greybeard]

All of them, and it's not as evil as it sounds. They're simply following their beliefs and think it's noble. Maybe they don't realize how badly the policy and those like you promoting it are mucking it up.

So their we have it, yet another change of stance when somebody questions you. It's not a conspiracy to keep their jobs any more, they are simply following their beliefs and think it's noble. Debating with you is like trying to nail jelly (jello) to a wall.

 

[Pixel42]

I wasn't endorsing that so much as saying I agree with his view about people being rather hostile here.

OK but that wasn't how I initially read it, so I can understand if DC also took it as an endorsement.

I haven't thus far made any claims strictly about climate science. My comments are entirely centered around what we're supposed to do about it.

Again fair enough, but this is the science forum and this thread (despite occasional off topic tangents) is about the science - what's happening, what's the cause, how serious is it likely to be.

 

[macdoc]

I haven't thus far made any claims strictly about climate science. My comments are entirely centered around what we're supposed to do about it. In fact, the piece you are replying to says nothing at all about climate science, rather it is directed entirely at the environmentalist movement, or more specifically what macdoc refers to as responsible behavior. I'm not quite sure how you derived any climate science references from that.

In other words, what point are you trying to make with that statement towards debating anything I've said?

Your inferences are legion and we've seen the profile before.
So let's keep it simple.

Are you in general agreement with the main stream climate science that the earth is warming and it is primarily due to GHG emissions from burning fossil fuel?

Are you in agreement with the wider world community that this represents a challenge that needs to be addressed.....that BAU is not a suitable response.

Once we get by those two then please provide YOUR suggestion on how you think the problem is best addressed as that is where this particular forum is moving towards.