timschochet
Footballguy
I don't understand nuclear physics either, but I accept it.
What's seriously embarrassing are all the people around here who don't accept science.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
What's seriously embarrassing are all the people around here who don't accept science.
joffer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Let's put it this way. If the majority of scientists conduct tests and make conclusions based on those tests, you're going to have to give me awfully good reasons not to believe them. Most of the time I will.
Can you tell us in precise non-plagiarized words what you think most scientist believe concerning global warming?
Sand
Footballguy
I agree with Tim, 100%. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he/she tells me I have Stage 4 cancer and that I'll be lucky to make it to Christmas, and then I decide I want 99 "second opinions," and 89 of them tell me the exact same thing, let's just say that I'm hoping the 10 other doctors are smarter than the 90 who tell me I'm going to die...but the prudent, responsible thing for me to do would be to get my affairs in order.
What amazes me is that because one cannot be 100% certain in the impacts and/or outcomes of climate change, folks will happily throw it all away and go back to sticking their heads in the sand. Yet when a higher power or Creator cannot be proven to skeptics with 100% certainty, doubters are lost, misguided, or "just need to have faith."
Everything in life is gathering evidence and making decisions based upon one's belief in having the most positive outcome. Either selfishly (for themselves or only their family/friends), or for their community, or their State, or the nation, or for the planet as a whole. I can't even tell you with 100% certainty that the Sun will rise in the Eastern sky tomorrow morning! I know there's a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance it will. But still, it is at least plausible, though far from probable, that tonight is it for Planet Earth.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
im with thisI agree with Tim, 100%. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he/she tells me I have Stage 4 cancer and that I'll be lucky to make it to Christmas, and then I decide I want 99 "second opinions," and 89 of them tell me the exact same thing, let's just say that I'm hoping the 10 other doctors are smarter than the 90 who tell me I'm going to die...but the prudent, responsible thing for me to do would be to get my affairs in order.
What amazes me is that because one cannot be 100% certain in the impacts and/or outcomes of climate change, folks will happily throw it all away and go back to sticking their heads in the sand. Yet when a higher power or Creator cannot be proven to skeptics with 100% certainty, doubters are lost, misguided, or "just need to have faith."
guy.....I had a close friend where all the doctors told her she had less than 12 months to live because of a brain tumor and her only hope was surgery. She went to China and went through therapy there with various medicines and became cancer free.I agree with Tim, 100%. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he/she tells me I have Stage 4 cancer and that I'll be lucky to make it to Christmas, and then I decide I want 99 "second opinions," and 89 of them tell me the exact same thing, let's just say that I'm hoping the 10 other doctors are smarter than the 90 who tell me I'm going to die...but the prudent, responsible thing for me to do would be to get my affairs in order.
What amazes me is that because one cannot be 100% certain in the impacts and/or outcomes of climate change, folks will happily throw it all away and go back to sticking their heads in the sand. Yet when a higher power or Creator cannot be proven to skeptics with 100% certainty, doubters are lost, misguided, or "just need to have faith."
joffer
Footballguy
the significant majority of scientists in this field believe that its being driven primarily by CO2 emissions.
So there you have it then. Climate change is a lie. That, and God must love her more than the millions of others who die from cancer (and/or her faith was stronger...or she had more people praying on her behalf).I had a close friend where all the doctors told her she had less than 12 months to live because of a brain tumor and her only hope was surgery. She went to China and went through therapy there with various medicines and became cancer free.I agree with Tim, 100%. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he/she tells me I have Stage 4 cancer and that I'll be lucky to make it to Christmas, and then I decide I want 99 "second opinions," and 89 of them tell me the exact same thing, let's just say that I'm hoping the 10 other doctors are smarter than the 90 who tell me I'm going to die...but the prudent, responsible thing for me to do would be to get my affairs in order.
What amazes me is that because one cannot be 100% certain in the impacts and/or outcomes of climate change, folks will happily throw it all away and go back to sticking their heads in the sand. Yet when a higher power or Creator cannot be proven to skeptics with 100% certainty, doubters are lost, misguided, or "just need to have faith."
[/thread]Edited to add: I'm happy your friend was an exception to the norm, and that she's still around for you to spend time with. I may be an evil, soulless supporter of Obama (voted for him in 2008 and 2012), but I still have a heart in my chest. However small.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Some excellent examples of science. The thing about the sun rising in the east, scientist can tell us exactly what time it will rise everyday to the nanosecond and be absolutely correct day after day after day. In the global warming debate, they tell us how much they expect the temperature to rise because of the increase in CO2, and their numbers are no where near accurate. When they start telling us even somewhat accurately how the climate will behave, I will have faith they really understand everything going on and have eliminated the unknown variables.
timschochet
Footballguy
Right now, if you do not believe that global warming is a (1) a very serious issue and/or (2) it is being caused by man's use of carbon emissions, then I would say yes, you are not accepting science.
joffer
Footballguy
yeah, I was surprised too. have the VPN option in my pocket just in case
And if it's that simple, it should be really simple to come up with some solutions. Of course, none of them are going to unicorns and rainbows, so you'll reject them while suggesting the situation is urgent and demands immediate attention.
joffer
Footballguy
I think you're talking about two different things
1. correlating past and present temperature rise to hypothesized causes
2. computer modeling to predict future events
just because we haven't mastered #2 yet, doesn't mean #1 is useless.
But you admit that you occasionally go against the majority position. And in fact, most of the advances which have occurred in science have been by people who went against the established position. I happen to believe that CO2 emissions are a contributor to global warming but that we do not understand what countervailing things may be occurring in an incredibly complex ecosystem. And no, I don't believe we are in a crisis situation, partly because the computer projections have invariably been wrong on the "crisis" side.
So, in continuing with my Stage 4 cancer analogy, 90 of 100 doctors tell me I won't make it to Christmas....and I die on January 5 the following year. Were they all wrong (suck it, MDs..I "beat" cancer, woohoo!)? Cancer didn't kill me? Or were they right in saying that I would die from the disease...and that past observations/experience lead them to believe that I had less than 7.5 months to live? When I actually made it eight full months.
Seems like a good analogy to me...since folks who deny/refute climate change are saying it's all a lie because the average temperature of our air and oceans hasn't increased as fast as some (heck, even many/most) scientists said it would. Therefore, the "cancer" of climate change won't kill us in the end. Or maybe we don't have "cancer" at all? Just because things didn't get as bad, as fast, as people said it would. But it still got worse (warmer). AKA most "doctors" will still tell you we have a terminal disease.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I often go against the majority opinion. But on political and social issues, not on science issues.
timschochet
Footballguy
I see that you'll continue to mock me for this. And I suppose I can't stop you. If scientists were as unified on a solution as they are on determining the problem, then I suppose I would be too. It may be that we have to cut down on carbon emissions without first developing new energy sources. I would hate if that were the case, because it will mean a lot of pain. I would prefer to explore switching to new energy first, if that is possible. We'll see.
Coming up with rationale explanations to explain past data is a great start, but hindsight is always 20/20. It is when you are able to understand all the interactions between the variables which impact climate and you can predict with confidence future climate will be, that is when you can say the science is settled. Right now we are in the infancy stages of understanding all the factors which impact climate change. When the IPCC says authoritatively that they are 95 percent certain that man is the primary contributor to global warming, they are not speaking with numbers which can be back up by math and science. They are throwing out numbers to instill public confidence that they know what they speak of, yet if you look at their rather large uncertainties and even those uncertainties are based on models which have proven inaccurate, it is insane to assign such a large confidence level to such. I am sure the science knows the greenhouse gases as CFC did in the past do impact climate, but there is no definitive quantification of how much of an impact it will be or what kind of positive or negative feedback other variables the earth will throw at us.
Right now we have models saying they are certain you have 6-9 months to live, but we are in our 12th month and still going strong. None of the models have been even close, all have been out of their statistical margin of errors. There is stuff going on which they do not understand yet.
Incorrect. Right now, we have models that say we have "50-100 years to live" (as we've known it) ...and because we're still alive after 5-10 of those years and the "cancer" hasn't spread quite as fast as we thought, people are saying it's all a lie. Self-diagnosing ourselves as cured, or at BARE minimum, in remission.
Does it really matter whether it takes 50, 100, 200, 500 years for us to dramatically harm our planet's ability to support life as we've known it throughout recorded history? I suppose it matters if people are only concerned with short-term gains and pain. But I'd at least like to leave things better than I found it...and have future generations look back on our current generations with gratitude (rather than disdain).
That is not science, that is fear. If we want to solve global warming, let's just pump CFC's back into the atmosphere and enlarge those ozone holes again. It is not that hard. But I don't think we should be playing those games until we understand more and we actually see we really understand how the climate will behave.
The cancer analogy just isn't that great. We've seen cancer happen, there are case studies. When your doctor says you have 7 months to live, they've actually seen people have your disease and symptoms before. And they've seen the end result, many times over. They aren't basing it off of some computer model that indicates what some unknown disease they've never seen before and only have a vague understanding of will do. If they were, most people would question whether they should continue to invest in this care when all of the projections have been wrong, they feel just fine still, and the doctor is asking for another 6 figures to continue their research.
Last edited by a moderator:
They're entirely unified on the solution. Use less carbon, starting immediately. But keep on doing nothing and wondering what the appropriate course of action is to this problem that you have so eloquently simplified.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've had an emission-free commute (from the second floor to the third floor of our home, hehe) for the past 12 years. I also walk/bike to any meetings in our community (within ~2.5 miles of our home, even in the dead of Winter), or running any errands where the items I need will fit in my arms. I'll dedicate the past 12 years to you, DrJ.
You should dedicate them to tim, I've already got my environmental guilt pretty well covered.I've had an emission-free commute (from the second floor to the third floor of our home, hehe) for the past 12 years. I also walk/bike to any meetings in our community (within ~2.5 miles of our home, even in the dead of Winter), or running any errands where the items I need will fit in my arms. I'll dedicate the past 12 years to you, DrJ.
joffer
Footballguy
I'm wondering what makes you say the bolded above. And again, you can't use the failure of computer modeling to accurately predict the future to discredit the science done to correlate cause and effect in the past/present.
We're looking for possible causes to the earth getting warmer. CO2 levels correlate very well, and research into past indicators (ice cores, etc.) agree. Science is never "settled", its simply the best explanation we have at the current time based on evidence. The evidence is strong enough that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept it. If it's correct, and we fail to act, the consequences could be dire.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
lies ....Lies ....ALL LIES
....they just want to get into the news and scare us ...they all have a political agenda dammit !!!!!!!!!Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I thought you expressed exactly the opposite principle when it comes to background checks for private gun sales, in fact I know you did. Not that consistency is required issue to issue. Hell, some call that hypocrisy, I call it being comfortable with paradox. But when you represent that you are consistent on a principle and you are not, well then that does cross over into hypocrisy.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Sure glad that the brain trust is in here to stop that grand scientific conspiracy from taking hold.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Not just political! They also want that windfall of research $$ so they can live it up on the taxpayer's dime ... in Antarctica. Collecting data.lies ....Lies ....ALL LIES
I disagree with point 1, as "very serious" is a subjective term. Re: point 2, does one have to define the percentage of warming caused by man's carbon emissions, or does one simply have to believe it is non-zero, in order to "accept science"?
timschochet
Footballguy
I dont believe background checks are symbolic, nor do I believe they will cause unnecessary pain- perhaps inconvenience, but that is hardly on the level of what we are discussing here. The issues are not even remotely comparable.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's the primary reason.
Yeah, I don't buy that we know (with a high degree of certainty) that CO2 is the primary cause of warming over the last N decades. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not remotely ready to say that it is, either.
msommer
Footballguy
Did she marry johnnycakes?I had a close friend where all the doctors told her she had less than 12 months to live because of a brain tumor and her only hope was surgery. She went to China and went through therapy there with various medicines and became cancer free.I agree with Tim, 100%. If I go to the doctor tomorrow and he/she tells me I have Stage 4 cancer and that I'll be lucky to make it to Christmas, and then I decide I want 99 "second opinions," and 89 of them tell me the exact same thing, let's just say that I'm hoping the 10 other doctors are smarter than the 90 who tell me I'm going to die...but the prudent, responsible thing for me to do would be to get my affairs in order.
What amazes me is that because one cannot be 100% certain in the impacts and/or outcomes of climate change, folks will happily throw it all away and go back to sticking their heads in the sand. Yet when a higher power or Creator cannot be proven to skeptics with 100% certainty, doubters are lost, misguided, or "just need to have faith."
If it is the major cause, it is hard to explain why the world has not significantly warmed in the last 15 years, when we have pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than in any 15 years of human existence.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-calls-urgent-climate-change-action-145755655.html;_ylt=AwrTcc2A.WhT2EEA9YoPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--
Washington (AFP) - The White House called Tuesday for urgent action to combat climate change, as it released a study on the impact of global warming across the United States and key sectors of the US economy.
The four-year survey warned of serious threats to homes and infrastructure and industry in the face of extreme weather events.
President Barack Obama vowed during his victorious 2008 presidential campaign to make the United States a leader in tackling climate change and the "security threat" it poses.
But he has failed to convince Congress to take significant action during his subsequent years in office.
As part of a new push on the issue this week, Obama was to give televised interviews with various meteorologists Tuesday to discuss the findings of the third US National Climate Assessment.
Hundreds of the nation's best climate scientists and technical experts -- from both the private and public sectors -- worked on the report, which examines the impact of climate change today and makes forecasts for the next century.
The researchers warned of drought in the state of California, prairie fires in Oklahoma and rising ocean levels on the East Coast, particularly in Florida, most of them caused by humans.
Sea level rise is also eating away at low-lying areas in places like Mississippi.
In the Southeast and Caribbean regions, home to more than 80 million people and some of the nation's fastest-growing metropolitan areas, "sea level rise combines with other climate-related impacts and existing pressures such as land subsidence, causing significant economic and ecological implications."
View gallery
The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.
The impact of global warming is unevenly distributed across US territory, with spectacular effects in Alaska, which researchers said warmed twice as fast as the rest of the country.
"Arctic summer sea ice is receding faster than previously projected and is expected to virtually disappear before mid-century," the report said.
"This is altering marine ecosystems and leading to greater ship access, offshore development opportunity and increased community vulnerability to coastal erosion."
It warned that rising permafrost temperatures would cause drier landscapes, more wildfire, changes to wildlife habitat, greater infrastructure maintenance costs and the release of greenhouse gases that increase global warming.
- Republican hostility -
Facilities and roads that are vital to the US economy are also under the threat of rising water levels or an increase in already reported tropical storms hitting coastal areas, the report says.
It cites in particular State Highway 1 in Louisiana, the only road linking New Orleans to Port Fourchon, a strategic oil hub. The road is "sinking, at the same time sea level is rising," resulting in more frequent and more severe flooding during high tides and storms. A 90-day shut down of this highway would cost the nation an estimated $7.8 billion.
In more general terms, climate change will increase costs for the country's transport system and its users, said the authors, who warn that major adaptation measures will be necessary to overcome this.
The report, which can be viewed at www.globalchange.gov and aims to mobilize American citizens as well as local communities, is part of Obama's sputtering efforts to address global warming, which have gone nowhere in Congress. There, Republicans control the House of Representatives.
The fight against climate change, once a high priority issue when Obama took office, was relegated to the back burner after a bill failed in Congress early in his first term, when Democrats still held both houses.
The president's Republican foes, who now hold a majority in the House of Representatives, reject new federal laws on emissions, which they say harm growth and employment.
And Democrats from states that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, such as oil-rich Louisiana and coal-rich West Virginia, have also come out against a transition to green energy.
During his January 28 State of the Union address, Obama reiterated that climate change is real and promised unilateral action, without Congress, to promote his energy agenda.
The administration has already taken regulatory measures, in particular by introducing tougher federal emission standards for vehicles.
Washington (AFP) - The White House called Tuesday for urgent action to combat climate change, as it released a study on the impact of global warming across the United States and key sectors of the US economy.
The four-year survey warned of serious threats to homes and infrastructure and industry in the face of extreme weather events.
President Barack Obama vowed during his victorious 2008 presidential campaign to make the United States a leader in tackling climate change and the "security threat" it poses.
But he has failed to convince Congress to take significant action during his subsequent years in office.
As part of a new push on the issue this week, Obama was to give televised interviews with various meteorologists Tuesday to discuss the findings of the third US National Climate Assessment.
Hundreds of the nation's best climate scientists and technical experts -- from both the private and public sectors -- worked on the report, which examines the impact of climate change today and makes forecasts for the next century.
The researchers warned of drought in the state of California, prairie fires in Oklahoma and rising ocean levels on the East Coast, particularly in Florida, most of them caused by humans.
Sea level rise is also eating away at low-lying areas in places like Mississippi.
In the Southeast and Caribbean regions, home to more than 80 million people and some of the nation's fastest-growing metropolitan areas, "sea level rise combines with other climate-related impacts and existing pressures such as land subsidence, causing significant economic and ecological implications."
View gallery
The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.
The impact of global warming is unevenly distributed across US territory, with spectacular effects in Alaska, which researchers said warmed twice as fast as the rest of the country.
"Arctic summer sea ice is receding faster than previously projected and is expected to virtually disappear before mid-century," the report said.
"This is altering marine ecosystems and leading to greater ship access, offshore development opportunity and increased community vulnerability to coastal erosion."
It warned that rising permafrost temperatures would cause drier landscapes, more wildfire, changes to wildlife habitat, greater infrastructure maintenance costs and the release of greenhouse gases that increase global warming.
- Republican hostility -
Facilities and roads that are vital to the US economy are also under the threat of rising water levels or an increase in already reported tropical storms hitting coastal areas, the report says.
It cites in particular State Highway 1 in Louisiana, the only road linking New Orleans to Port Fourchon, a strategic oil hub. The road is "sinking, at the same time sea level is rising," resulting in more frequent and more severe flooding during high tides and storms. A 90-day shut down of this highway would cost the nation an estimated $7.8 billion.
In more general terms, climate change will increase costs for the country's transport system and its users, said the authors, who warn that major adaptation measures will be necessary to overcome this.
The report, which can be viewed at www.globalchange.gov and aims to mobilize American citizens as well as local communities, is part of Obama's sputtering efforts to address global warming, which have gone nowhere in Congress. There, Republicans control the House of Representatives.
The fight against climate change, once a high priority issue when Obama took office, was relegated to the back burner after a bill failed in Congress early in his first term, when Democrats still held both houses.
The president's Republican foes, who now hold a majority in the House of Representatives, reject new federal laws on emissions, which they say harm growth and employment.
And Democrats from states that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, such as oil-rich Louisiana and coal-rich West Virginia, have also come out against a transition to green energy.
During his January 28 State of the Union address, Obama reiterated that climate change is real and promised unilateral action, without Congress, to promote his energy agenda.
The administration has already taken regulatory measures, in particular by introducing tougher federal emission standards for vehicles.
timschochet
Footballguy
The report cited a locally-sponsored study as saying that coastal areas in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas could face annual losses of $23 billion by 2030, with about half of those costs related to climate change.
Surely news like this will wake up the people in these states, most of whom are conservative, that this problem needs to be addressed?
Surely news like this will wake up the people in these states, most of whom are conservative, that this problem needs to be addressed?
Well, certainly the 10 million climate refugees who have been living amongst us since 2010, will believe every word of this.
