Climate Change Report

[Latrinsorm]

I know you didn't, you just posted a general principle without commentary. That's why I went with my funny reply. I hate it when I have to explain my funnies.

I'm also not suggesting the species will survive when the sun begins it's progression to a red dwarf, nor a half million degree sudden temperature change from a particularly pesky nuclear bomb. Somewhere between the 1/2 degree change and these extreme examples, we'll cope.

The report addresses this question, and the somewhere is not as far from the 1/2 degree as you seem to believe.

The more interesting questions to me, are more a combination of science, sociology and ethics. Just because mankind can survive something, doesn't mean it will be fun to do so. Look at the smog in China, that's got to suck to live in. Is the larger concern the immediate death of Chinese citizens by breathing, or the possible long term affect of that smog on the world climate? Do we, as concerned world citizens get a say in how that developing country chooses to behave, after we've already gone through our smoggy industrial revolution ourselves? Is it enough to give them friendly advice on how to better the environment, or should we bomb them into oblivion to keep them from ever polluting again? Maybe somewhere in the middle?

They are certainly more interesting, because they are actually questions and not settled matters. I would say that they are certainly less relevant, though, because we can't talk about solutions until we agree there's a problem.

[Tgo01]

Are you personally fighting global warming or not? You believe in good stewardship and say you're doing more to combat climate change than most people then you also say that you don't believe in it. What is it? You believe in it or don't you?

I don't believe in treating the homeless as actual people but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go around kicking them in the teeth all day.

I may or may not be joking about the above sentence.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't believe in treating the homeless as actual people but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go around kicking them in the teeth all day.

I may or may not be joking about the above sentence.

Why won't Terrence make a clear statement that he doesn't kick homeless people in the teeth? What is he trying to hide?

[Tgo01]

Why won't Terrence make a clear statement that he doesn't kick homeless people in the teeth? What is he trying to hide?

Maybe I'm a dentist and the government pays me to treat poor people and my best customers are homeless people missing a few teeth.

Hey if everyone would stop trying to fight dental problems and trying to make gingivitis disappear I wouldn't have to make my own patients!

[Ker_Thwap]

For a guy who "fucking loves science" you sure don't seem to pay much attention to scientists. This isn't a political issue, unfortunately you keep looking at it in that context.

Before we go further? Are you stoned right now? Because I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone who is stoned?

I have no problem with scientists. You however, seemingly do. Let's give you a very simple example.

Scientific experiment: Temperature yesterday at noon at my location was 18 degrees. Today, the temperature at noon at my location was 22 degrees. That's science. It's boring science, it's lame science, but it's factually correct. Expand that experiment to consider 100 other variables. Where was the jet stream each day, was it overcast, was the barometer rising or falling, was my car running six inches away from the thermometer, was the earth's tilt increasing or decreasing by a millionth of a degree, did my dog fart in the yard.

Let's say you account for these hundreds of variables accurately. Now what? Can we determine a trend? Should I not use my car? Would an electric car shipped across the world help the price of grain in Omaha? Should I plant a maple tree, or an oak tree in my front yard? But won't the roots ruin my septic system? Can I get a government grant for planting an organic tree farm? Wait, what? These questions are flat out stupid and not related to that scientific conclusion that their was a 3 degree temperature change since yesterday.

Just because science exists doesn't mean that you should pimp it out to feed your ideals no matter what the data is. You don't care about the science, all you do is fling the "Anti Science" label about at your foes, like a monkey flings shit. Yes, certain idiots deserve to have that label flung at them, but you aren't even clever enough to know who to fling it at.

Sorry for the ad hominen attacks, but you just aren't making sense.

[Ker_Thwap]

The report addresses this question, and the somewhere is not as far from the 1/2 degree as you seem to believe.They are certainly more interesting, because they are actually questions and not settled matters. I would say that they are certainly less relevant, though, because we can't talk about solutions until we agree there's a problem.

I've never denied there was a concern. Is it a tempest in a teapot? Beats me, I haven't seen the science and the modeling that accounts for even a small fraction of the earths natural/cosmic cycles and overlays that model with the man made concerns.

[cwolff]

Before we go further? Are you stoned right now? Because I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone who is stoned?

I have no problem with scientists. You however, seemingly do. Let's give you a very simple example.

Scientific experiment: Temperature yesterday at noon at my location was 18 degrees. Today, the temperature at noon at my location was 22 degrees. That's science. It's boring science, it's lame science, but it's factually correct. Expand that experiment to consider 100 other variables. Where was the jet stream each day, was it overcast, was the barometer rising or falling, was my car running six inches away from the thermometer, was the earth's tilt increasing or decreasing by a millionth of a degree, did my dog fart in the yard.

Let's say you account for these hundreds of variables accurately. Now what? Can we determine a trend? Should I not use my car? Would an electric car shipped across the world help the price of grain in Omaha? Should I plant a maple tree, or an oak tree in my front yard? But won't the roots ruin my septic system? Can I get a government grant for planting an organic tree farm? Wait, what? These questions are flat out stupid and not related to that scientific conclusion that their was a 3 degree temperature change since yesterday.

Just because science exists doesn't mean that you should pimp it out to feed your ideals no matter what the data is. You don't care about the science, all you do is fling the "Anti Science" label about at your foes, like a monkey flings shit. Yes, certain idiots deserve to have that label flung at them, but you aren't even clever enough to know who to fling it at.

Sorry for the ad hominen attacks, but you just aren't making sense.

Defensive much?

I was a math major, with an emphasis on statistics. I fucking love science!

I have no problem with scientists.

I haven't seen the science and the modeling that accounts for even a small fraction of the earths natural/cosmic cycles and overlays that model with the man made concerns.

For the sake of clarity. What is your position? What I'm picking up is a combination of apathy and rationalization. To be fair; maybe you are right and this will all blow over. Or it doesn't blow over but that's ok because homo sapiens are resilient. Maybe you just are feeling uncomfortable right now and are doing your best to shift the conversation in another direction like stoned monkeys throwing shit at a prius.

[Ker_Thwap]

For the sake of clarity. What is your position? What I'm picking up is a combination of apathy and rationalization. To be fair; maybe you are right and this will all blow over. Or it doesn't blow over but that's ok because homo sapiens are resilient. Maybe you just are feeling uncomfortable right now and are doing your best to shift the conversation in another direction like stoned monkeys throwing shit at a prius.

My answer isn't black and white, because it's not a simple question. I'm pragmatic. I do what I'm capable of doing. I try not to be ignorant of what the impact my choices have on others and myself. I'm also selfish enough to want to enjoy a certain lifestyle. I'm a realist in that I know I'm living like a king compared to a tribesman in the heart of Africa, and that probably does harm the planet. I can live with that. What's wrong with rationalization?

I'd be thrilled if some research institute spent a bunch of years developing an ever developing model of the earth, the interplay of it's thousands of natural cycles, the further interplay of the cosmological motions of the earth within the solar system, and then added in the interplay of the thousands of things that mankind does that also contributes to environment changes. I think that would be some awesome data to check out and base some decisions on. What we have now is more akin to "A study on the effect of changing temperatures in a bubble in some guy's living room" and then we have non scientists claiming that study has significance.

Do I believe in man made global warming? Sure. Do I think it's a big concern for humankind? Maybe? Maybe not. That's not apathy. It's just pragmatism. Is there a lot of point in worrying about it? For who? How do you balance the Chinese peasant thrilled to be earning a living wage working in a waste producing factory with the twenty year old guy living in his parent's basement wringing his hands because he's concerned about global warming for some indefinite reason he can't quite pin down. Do I believe that markets, manufacturing efficiency, and profits will drive innovation? Do I think that government grants to profiteering researchers will drive innovation? Nope, I'm a moderate, the answer is somewhere in the middle. So, I get to piss off both sides of the debate. Just because I'm pissing you off, it doesn't mean I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Latrinsorm]

I'd be thrilled if some research institute spent a bunch of years developing an ever developing model of the earth, the interplay of it's thousands of natural cycles, the further interplay of the cosmological motions of the earth within the solar system, and then added in the interplay of the thousands of things that mankind does that also contributes to environment changes. I think that would be some awesome data to check out and base some decisions on. What we have now is more akin to "A study on the effect of changing temperatures in a bubble in some guy's living room" and then we have non scientists claiming that study has significance.

So if a report came out that said:

"The expected changes in climate are based on our understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat. Both this fundamental understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases and fingerprint studies show that natural causes alone are inadequate to explain the recent observed changes in climate. Natural causes include variations in the Sun’s output and in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and internal fluctuations in the climate system (such as El Niño and La Niña). ... Only when models include human influences on the composition of the atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes."

You would be pretty psyched?

[Ker_Thwap]

So if a report came out that said:

"The expected changes in climate are based on our understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat. Both this fundamental understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases and fingerprint studies show that natural causes alone are inadequate to explain the recent observed changes in climate. Natural causes include variations in the Sun’s output and in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and internal fluctuations in the climate system (such as El Niño and La Niña). ... Only when models include human influences on the composition of the atmosphere are the resulting temperature changes consistent with observed changes."

You would be pretty psyched?

Nope. You're not there yet. I already believe the reports that take these things into account. I want to see the grand model that ties it all together and spits out vaguely predictable future results.