metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Science does not work that way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Global warming or global hoax?
- Thread starter Kemosloby
- Start date
According to Wikipedia the global mean concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 parts per million (0.028%) to 399 parts per million (0.0399%) in 2015. It is increasing at a rate of approximately 2 parts per million per year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
Why is climate change science a dogma?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
okay, so that's an increase of 119 molecules of CO2 in one million of air
or slightly over one molecule CO2 in ten thousand molecules of air....
do you really think this, or even double this, can trap enough heat, to warm the globe to any significant/ noticeable/ deleterious degree?
The dogma says it doesn't work that way. So you have to believe the dogma to believe science is incorruptible.
The science says "yes". The graph below depicts a correlation over a period of the last 450,000 years.
However, the degree of correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature change is debated depending on the length of time scales involved. The graph below shows the data from 200 to 11,000 years ago and a much weaker correlation.
Edit- source:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04...les-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
sorry to lead you into a trap, but you already disagree with that 97% of 'scientific consensus'
This amount of CO2 absolutely cannot itself trap any significant amount of heat and this is utterly undisputed, you could argue your assertion with any scientist on any side of this argument
The entire theory relies 100% on positive feedback loops- as simulated in computer programs, multiplying a tiny amount of extra warmth into a Hollywood disaster movie.
So you are willing to subjugate humanity to having large parts of their lives and freedoms governed by a belief... you don't really know much about at all.
You sound like most AGW proponents to me, like a perfectly intelligent well meaning person, who wishes nothing but the best for earth and humanity
And so- you think the 'solutions' to global warming are good ideas anyway, regardless of whether or not there is actually a problem? yes?
There's your 'conspiracy theory'. global warmers are not duped or liars or conspiring (mostly). They simply share a common well intended political agenda that they genuinely think justifies this very effective means of implementing it.
It's beside the point, but on correlation- that's a commonly used chart- but the CO2 lags the temperatures in that chart by about 800-900 years. You can even see the lag at this large scale but it's much more obvious in detail.
The fact that higher temps lead to higher CO2 levels with this lag is also undisputed, (& what happened 800-900 years ago? the medieval warm period....
)
sorry to lead you into a trap, but you already disagree with that 97% of 'scientific consensus'
This amount of CO2 absolutely cannot itself trap any significant amount of heat and this is utterly undisputed, you could argue your assertion with any scientist on any side of this argument
The entire theory relies 100% on positive feedback loops- as simulated in computer programs, multiplying a tiny amount of extra warmth into a Hollywood disaster movie.
So you are willing to subjugate humanity to having large parts of their lives and freedoms governed by a belief... you don't really know much about at all.
You sound like most AGW proponents to me, like a perfectly intelligent well meaning person, who wishes nothing but the best for earth and humanity
And so- you think the 'solutions' to global warming are good ideas anyway, regardless of whether or not there is actually a problem? yes?
There's your 'conspiracy theory'. global warmers are not duped or liars or conspiring (mostly). They simply share a common well intended political agenda that they genuinely think justifies this very effective means of implementing it.
It's beside the point, but on correlation- that's a commonly used chart- but the CO2 lags the temperatures in that chart by about 800-900 years. You can even see the lag at this large scale but it's much more obvious in detail.
The fact that higher temps lead to higher CO2 levels with this lag is also undisputed, (& what happened 800-900 years ago? the medieval warm period....
I can see an attempt at a compliment there so I'll take it.
lets say I was willing to entertain the possibility that you are right and my ignorance on the exact deatils and mechanisms of climate change is based on accepting authority.
We cannot know everything and therefore we rely on others collectively to act as stores of human knowledge. Given the way our society is organised, the most efficient way to do this is by having experts specialise in their field. This is based on treating the authority of science based on its successful use in application that have greater increased our technological powers and therefore improved our standard of living. Whether in part or in whole rejecting the authority of science is essentially revolutionary given how it's applications affect our lives.
How far should we take the willingness to question the authority of scientists before we begin effectively questioning scientific evidence due to our ignorance of it?
(E.g. I don't like the Big Bang or quantum mechanics but essentially defer to scientific authority on it).
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I can see an attempt at a compliment there so I'll take it.
lets say I was willing to entertain the possibility that you are right and my ignorance on the exact deatils and mechanisms of climate change is based on accepting authority.
We cannot know everything and therefore we rely on others collectively to act as stores of human knowledge. Given the way our society is organised, the most efficient way to do this is by having experts specialise in their field. This is based on treating the authority of science based on its successful use in application that have greater increased our technological powers and therefore improved our standard of living. Whether in part or in whole rejecting the authority of science is essentially revolutionary given how it's applications affect our lives.
How far should we take the willingness to question the authority of scientists before we begin effectively questioning scientific evidence due to our ignorance of it?
(E.g. I don't like the Big Bang or quantum mechanics but essentially defer to scientific authority on it).
There is no easy answer I agree, but I would definitely refute that this is it:
The answers lie remain buried in computer code, in simulations that have been repeatedly proven about as reliable at predicting climate, as pollsters are predicting elections in 2016!
I am also open to the possibility that I am wrong, and for the sake of argument, that the computer sims now accurately model the entire climate system of Earth- 50 years out even. but that still leaves us with a massive, unprecedented political conflict of interest. the I in IPCC stands for intergovernmental.
Delving into some studies, I really have little to quibble with on many of the studies themselves, many climatologists are open and upfront about the lack of certainty, hard science to deal with.
When you read the questions in polls that give results like 97%... I largely agree with many of them- technically we are 'contributing to global warming'. But then this number appears next to a picture of Manhattan underwater etc.. not only in media but IPCC summaries
That's not what they are agreeing on!
Ultimately, CO2 IS good for plants, not only growth but drought resistance. This is photosynthesis, science, observable and repeatable, no computer sim required.
I think the same goes for many benefits of a little more CO2, and or warmth on Earth, while the negatives are not nearly so obvious, empirical. But there is no doubt which holds vast rewards for political establishments especially global ones.
I find the willingness to place the individual as the primary or sole arbiter of truth as troubling given the uncertianity involved and sheer vulnerability of individuals. If nothing else, it feels safer to be wrong with the many than be right alone. Its the way our social behaviour makes us feel safe when we conform even if when being part of the herd is dangerous and makes that sense of safety an illusion.
Science is treated as an authority and we are very much dependent on institutionalised science. That dependency is open to abuse as people put the label on "science" on things that on closer scrutiny clearly as not. Science education and popular science suffer for trying to get people to repeat facts rather than think and act on the basis of curiosity and use science to answer their own questions. science in turned into a tool of authoritarian indoctorination rather than as a weapon for individual enlightenment and freedom.
Whether its true or not, the hype and sensationalism surronding climate change science is extremely destructive- if only because it produces paralyisis that means we feel overwhelmed and get depressed. There is a great deal of propaganda involved in that and it is unfair both to the people to be manipulated like that but also grossly simplifies the science to easy to remember soundbites, (e.g. The 97% quote).
If climate change is real and is such a threat, I will agree that there has been a casatrophic failure to communite it effectively as science and instead its been reduced to making people feel guilt, fear and despair. That isnt how science should be presented as-aside from the uncertianities in all scientificknowledge- given that "knowledge is power" the emotive sensationalism reflects the willingness to blame individuals rather than look at systematic failures which mean we are "addicted" to burning fossil fuels and make more rational cases for wider reform.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Thanks for the thoughtful response, I think that is all very well said indeed, and will save it to quote to others in future! I think we agree that its not as simple as 'scientists say, so it's true' nor is it as simple as 'scientific institutions are all corrupted by politics'- but there is some truth somewhere in the middle.
But there are some pretty unambiguous facts here which should be brought into the open, rather than branded 'science denial'. Our contribution of CO2 is NOT enough to directly deleteriously effect the climate by it's own enhancement of the GH effect. it IS enough to measurably enhance plant growth and drought resistance. There may be positive feedbacks which enhance this, and there may also be negative feedbacks which subdue it.
These should not be buried for fear of confusing people about the declared academic consensus. sometimes science is complicated.
If there are other good reasons to change how we use energy, land, resources, let's hear them stand on their own merits, they shouldn't need threats of doomsday to carry them if they are good ideas anyway.
I've seen clips of this video before. Its from the 1950's. Basically, We really should have sorted this whole thing out by now.
As for your last point:
It makes alot of economic sense to recycle our waste products and increase the efficiency with which we use resources. Not only does such efficiency mean we pollute less but it can be very profitable as otherwise "waste" can be turned into "wealth".
At the same time investing in public transportion can reduce congestion as a source of traffic "inefficency" in which overcrowded roads at peak hours mean people waste large amounts of time in traffic jams. The car shouldn't be the primary mode of transportion but an ancillary one for rural routes that not many people want to get to. The eco agenda is well served by this because it could eliminate pollution from petrol based cars infavour of more sustainable electric trains or trams, or buses, etc. Or using other alternative fuels.
The way we produce food not only contributes to greenhouse gases but is also very wasteful. Whilst it oversimplfies things much of the food we grow is used for animal feed so we can eat meat. Vegatarianism (or even reducing meat consumption) is both more sustainable and reduces methane from cows farts.
Our use of the soils, fresh water sources, forests and oceans for fishing are all unsustainable- and even without climate change- will cause us problems in the future as they degrade and make food and water more scarce.
Oil is finite and will peak and deplete soon. The great irony is that shifting to renewables is inevitable if we want to sustain an industrial civilisation. Climate change means it should been sooner rather than later, but eventually the oil will run out and we should shift to renewable through public investment if only to avoid a serious energy crisis.
So there are "alot" of reasons to go green besides climate change.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I've seen clips of this video before. Its from the 1950's. Basically, We really should have sorted this whole thing out by now.
The belief that bad weather is the fault of people doing bad things, is literally the oldest belief known to mankind.( It was global cooling when I was at school). The only thing that remains consistent are the 'solutions' usually involving the common people handing over sacrifices of wealth to appease the weather gods (accepted on their behalf by the elites in power)
As for your last point:
It makes alot of economic sense to recycle our waste products and increase the efficiency with which we use resources. Not only does such efficiency mean we pollute less but it can be very profitable as otherwise "waste" can be turned into "wealth".
At the same time investing in public transportion can reduce congestion as a source of traffic "inefficency" in which overcrowded roads at peak hours mean people waste large amounts of time in traffic jams. The car shouldn't be the primary mode of transportion but an ancillary one for rural routes that not many people want to get to. The eco agenda is well served by this because it could eliminate pollution from petrol based cars infavour of more sustainable electric trains or trams, or buses, etc. Or using other alternative fuels.
The way we produce food not only contributes to greenhouse gases but is also very wasteful. Whilst it oversimplfies things much of the food we grow is used for animal feed so we can eat meat. Vegatarianism (or even reducing meat consumption) is both more sustainable and reduces methane from cows farts.
Our use of the soils, fresh water sources, forests and oceans for fishing are all unsustainable- and even without climate change- will cause us problems in the future as they degrade and make food and water more scarce.
Oil is finite and will peak and deplete soon. The great irony is that shifting to renewables is inevitable if we want to sustain an industrial civilisation. Climate change means it should been sooner rather than later, but eventually the oil will run out and we should shift to renewable through public investment if only to avoid a serious energy crisis.
So there are "alot" of reasons to go green besides climate change.
Okay, then we may have some common ground here, broadly speaking!
I believe strongly in sustainable, environmentally friendly, efficient green energy with low footprints and recycling of vital resources, and living in harmony with nature in general
But as is often the case, when it comes to exact definitions of these things, we may disagree a little (that's what we are here for!
)sustainable: meaning energy production that can be sustained, when the wind drops, the sun goes down, and the subsidies dry up.
efficient, economically viable, not raising energy prices, hurting the poorest people the most.
Green:- goes without saying, incorporating the stuff that actually makes earth green.
low footprint: compact power generation facilities, not trashing entire countrysides with solar panels and turbines and all the extra miles of roads and powerlines to connect them-
environmentally friendly: not macerating and electrocuting countless thousands of large migrating birds - although the coyotes are not complaining!
recycling is the biggest, most important, widest perspective goal-:
During the Cambrian, CO2 levels were around 7000 ppm, plants consumed and buried this vital nutrient down to a scant 270 ppm pre-industrial, a near starvation level which helped open up vast deserts on Earth that were once lush. We are recycling and restoring a tiny fraction of this green gold back into the atmos. Some cosmologists have posited that a good way to look for advanced life on other planets, is to observe the same rapid greening this one is going through.
If we were doing the opposite, stripping CO2 from the atmos for some reason- then I'd be worried- we didn't have much left to spare.[/QUOTE]
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who said "science is incorruptible"?
As long as there are human beings in science, there's always going to be errors and dishonesty at times. However, these are always eventually corrected even if it takes a while to get there. OTOH, religion does not work on that basis.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, it doesn't.
These people - "investigators" you have called them - already believe in ghosts, so they already biased for such belief, before there is an investigation.
There have been no reliable and conclusive evidences for the existence of ghosts, just that some people are just superstitious.
[/QUOTE]Okay, then we may have some common ground here, broadly speaking!
I believe strongly in sustainable, environmentally friendly, efficient green energy with low footprints and recycling of vital resources, and living in harmony with nature in general
But as is often the case, when it comes to exact definitions of these things, we may disagree a little (that's what we are here for!
sustainable: meaning energy production that can be sustained, when the wind drops, the sun goes down, and the subsidies dry up.
efficient, economically viable, not raising energy prices, hurting the poorest people the most.
Green:- goes without saying, incorporating the stuff that actually makes earth green.
low footprint: compact power generation facilities, not trashing entire countrysides with solar panels and turbines and all the extra miles of roads and powerlines to connect them-
environmentally friendly: not macerating and electrocuting countless thousands of large migrating birds - although the coyotes are not complaining!
recycling is the biggest, most important, widest perspective goal-:
During the Cambrian, CO2 levels were around 7000 ppm, plants consumed and buried this vital nutrient down to a scant 270 ppm pre-industrial, a near starvation level which helped open up vast deserts on Earth that were once lush. We are recycling and restoring a tiny fraction of this green gold back into the atmos. Some cosmologists have posited that a good way to look for advanced life on other planets, is to observe the same rapid greening this one is going through.
If we were doing the opposite, stripping CO2 from the atmos for some reason- then I'd be worried- we didn't have much left to spare.
Well, this is encouraging.
I'm going to focus on individual ideas and see if your ok with them as the definitions are only as relevant as their applications.
I think essentially you can substitute peak oil for climate change in many respects in terms of the necessity to produce many of the same changes. The worlds supply of oil is finite and will run out sooner or later with cascading impacts on the economy given our dependence on it.
The major difference is that climate change necessitates moving away from oil sooner rather than later and not replacing it with coal (which Produces more CO2 when burned). Natural Gas will run out with oil at about the same time because they are related sources. It is more cost-effective to switch to substitutes such as fracking for oil which prolong our dependence on it because it means we don't have to overhaul our infastructure away from fossil fuels. This isn't so good for climate change but we can discuss that some other time.
If ultimately we agree on the necessity of shifting to renewable energy sources (I'll include nuclear fission for the sake of argument) simply because fossil fuels are finite- particuarly oil- we are about half way there even without climate change science.
Do you think peak oil is real and means we shoild adopt renewable energy sources in the long-run?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Well, this is encouraging.
I'm going to focus on individual ideas and see if your ok with them as the definitions are only as relevant as their applications.
I think essentially you can substitute peak oil for climate change in many respects in terms of the necessity to produce many of the same changes. The worlds supply of oil is finite and will run out sooner or later with cascading impacts on the economy given our dependence on it.
The major difference is that climate change necessitates moving away from oil sooner rather than later and not replacing it with coal (which Produces more CO2 when burned). Natural Gas will run out with oil at about the same time because they are related sources. It is more cost-effective to switch to substitutes such as fracking for oil which prolong our dependence on it because it means we don't have to overhaul our infastructure away from fossil fuels. This isn't so good for climate change but we can discuss that some other time.
If ultimately we agree on the necessity of shifting to renewable energy sources (I'll include nuclear fission for the sake of argument) simply because fossil fuels are finite- particuarly oil- we are about half way there even without climate change science.
Do you think peak oil is real and means we shoild adopt renewable energy sources in the long-run?
When I went to school in the 70s, I was told that I wouldn't be able to drive a car, because the oil would be gone. By the time I got my license in the 90's, I was filling up for 80c a gallon in Indiana.
Similarly, when oil was spiking a few years ago- who predicted a global oil glut in 2016? anybody?
IMO all major barriers to extraction of oil, gas, coal have been 100% political, 0% geological. I see no geological peak in the foreseeable future either no.
But politics is less predictable. When Hubbert apparently predicted peak oil in the US (though that peak might be surpassed soon) it did not happen for his geological reasons. Nobody in their right minds predicted we would restrict our own use of our own resources, preferring to send billions of $ across the planet to use someone elses!
Fossil fuels are technically finite perhaps, but by this argument, we could have turned our backs on them 100 years ago, and missed out on the revolution that fed and raised the world's standards of living, created the modern technological world we benefit from today.
I'd agree on fission, but I see oil, gas, coal as the miracle fuels of the future.
I agree with Trump, we want clean air, When I bought my house 10 years ago, we never had to wash our windows- everybody used clean burning propane.
Enter Obama's 'renewable energy'- they started subsidizing wood burning furnaces and jacked up the price of propane, everybody started cutting down their trees and burning them. Sometimes you can smell the smoke inside the house and everything gets a layer of soot on it. This is a leap backwards towards medieval times!
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I'm going to quit whilst I'm ahead. I think the difference between our respective ways of thinking is in orders of magnitude. This isn't going to be bridged in a single thread even if we share some common ground.
Nevertheless, its been very intresting and unexpectedly so, so thanks. I will have do more thinking on this for if we talk again about this issue later sometime.