Post: #26

(07-02-2014 09:49 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 03:05 AM)Clyde Wrote:  What is wrong with trying to clean up the environment? Some corporate fat cats have to pay some more in taxes? That is the crime.

Basic common sense math. Does living in a area that pumps out smog. Do you expect to have a high quality of life?

I say to the world "you first" because China, India and others are the dirtiest ass polluters around. We're nothing compared to them and all this talk about how to clean up in the US is pointless with those looming giants belching out many times more.

I don't really take a side either way on the global warming topic, however what annoys me is the left is pushing this specifically to have another way to screw over anyone making money and tax us some more. They don't give a shit about the environment.

This is why the US never signs onto things like the Kyoto protocol or other greenhouse gas accords. Their negotiators say things like why hamstring our own economy for little net impact on greenhouse gas emissions etc. Its why future goals have never been set.

Post: #27

Part of the "red pill" for me was when I realised that people were buying into the idea that carbon dioxide is pollution. CO2, as I've known since high school, is what plants breathe in and has existed in the atmosphere in far higher concentrations than currently.

Yes, you can make the case that too much human production of CO2 might cause a tipping point causing rapid temperature increase. That is a point of discussion and nuance.

But when the man on the street literally thinks that carbon dioxide is "pollution" like carcinogenic particulate matter, we're fucked. They have been brainwashed and I don't argue with stupid.

But my major issue with the "climate change" bullshit is the opportunity cost of focusing on it. All of people's laudable and noble desires to save the environment has been channeled and co-opted into a arena which accomplishes nothing.

I'm a big environmentalist, but to me that means firstly, cleaning up dangerous industrial chemicals and so forth for the direct benefit of humans, and secondly, protecting biodiversity. If China converts its dirty coal plants to "clean" coal, by the use of scrubbing processes which will emit low particle pollution, that's a direct win for the Chinese who will suffer lower incidences of cancer (this has nothing to do with CO2). If we set and achieve better fishing quotas, if we reduce rainforest clearance, if we have better public transport systems, if we stop killing tigers, these are environmental gains. Unfortunately so many of those issues have been forgotten in the cynical focus on a non-issue, and the environment has suffered hugely as a result. This issue must be put to bed. You care about the environment and about poor people, go fucking do something real about it.

Post: #28

I am surprised this article got published on ROK. ROK seems to me to be about using factual evidence to support certain arguments. However, the author's conclusion basically comes down to "If northern regions were once so warm that tropical species thrived, if ice ages come and go and temperatures fluctuate wildly even during ice ages, how the can you expect me to believe that burning up a few hydro-carbons is making any kind of a difference." This seem much more like the "feeling" type of arguments that most of this board are generally against.

The basic premises behind global warming and climate change is that the current observed temperature changes on the time scale of tens to hundreds of years is unprecedented and cannot be explained by the non-human related variations such as the ice ages mentioned.

The ice age oscillations do occur, but they are on a time scale of 100k to millions of years. The climate we have now is a super-position of all the different effects, and the change we have been observing cannot be explained by the geological time-scale variations of ice ages and glacial/inter-glacial fluctuations.

This part shows that the author didn't have a good understanding of what scientists are saying is global warming and climate change to begin with.

As for how can you expect to believe burning hydro-carbons can have an effect, the biggest hint should be in the graph that the author actually included in the article. From the past records, we can see clear strong correlation between CO2 concentration and surface temperature.

It is also a simple exercise with simple math to get the first order effect of an atmosphere with green house gas on the surface temperature. You can follow through the exercise here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

The physics behind how green house gas affects surface energy balance is very straight forward and it is irrational to not believe that green house gases would have an effect on mean surface temperature.

There are many other related issues as this encompasses an extremely broad area of research, and I cannot cover everything.

However, many of the typical arguments against anthropogenic climate change are addressed on this website with actual scientific studies related to those areas (meaning scientific journals and data, from peer-reviewed sources), not just some blog-post or news article. You can find much more here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Post: #29

Aside from the dynamics of climate change, I'll just drop the link to this excellent website that looks at the issue from the angle of energy consumption and production, based on different time scales. I have found it a joy to read and an amazing insight into realistic numbers that we're looking at as far as the term "sustainability" goes. Highly recommended.

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
(skip the intro and start here for meaty stuff: http://www.withouthotair.com/c3/page_29.shtml )

Post: #30

(07-02-2014 06:50 AM)Icarus Wrote:  Sigh...

Maybe I have spent enough years in academia doing research, and I have realized how dishonest the whole thing is, and how readily the seemingly infallible "scientists" lie in their research papers if that is what is needed to keep the federal funding coming in. I wish "science" were as pure and disinterested as some believe it is, but it's mostly a bunch of mafia groups fighting for a bigger slice of the National Science Foundation budget.

If you put "truth" and "honesty" above all else, especially above your own career, you won't survive long in academia. When everyone lies to get funding, you have no incentive to tell the truth. So, is there a conspiracy? Yes and no. The truth is that someone who has spent years working hard to acquire a PhD, then survived a couple of postdocs, then survived the first years as an assistant professor, and finally got tenure, is someone who is very strongly emotionally invested in his field, and will lie to himself to convince himself that his work is relevant. No man extinguishes his own job. Very few people have strong enough character to admit that their work is a waste of federal funds, and that their own field and community have been wrong for decades. People need a "mission" to have direction in life. "Scientists" are human, not gods.

Wow. Just wow. I had no idea the scientific community used "if you don't cheat, you can't compete" model for funding.

Post: #31

(07-18-2014 01:01 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  Wow. Just wow. I had no idea the scientific community used "if you don't cheat, you can't compete" model for funding.

The word "cheating" is too strong. Generally speaking, academics are truly convinced that their work and their field of research is more important than all the others, and that they deserve a bigger slice of the funding pie. Hence, they form alliances and act collectively to get the funding they believe they deserve. A "research field" is not merely about the topic being researched, but also about the community fighting for funding.

The best way to insult and anger an academic is to suggest that his or her work is pointless and useless. He or she will react like a child, throw a tantrum, insult you back, etc.

Post: #32

(07-18-2014 01:38 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 01:01 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  Wow. Just wow. I had no idea the scientific community used "if you don't cheat, you can't compete" model for funding.

The word "cheating" is too strong. Generally speaking, academics are truly convinced that their work and their field of research is more important than all the others, and that they deserve a bigger slice of the funding pie. Hence, they form alliances and act collectively to get the funding they believe they deserve. A "research field" is not merely about the topic being researched, but also about the community fighting for funding.

The best way to insult and anger an academic is to suggest that his or her work is pointless and useless. He or she will react like a child, throw a tantrum, insult you back, etc.

I borrowed the quote from competitive cycling,... bodybuilding, ...or Don King...I'm not sure. The alliteration just makes it catchy. I get your point though.

I was actually reacting to your (and Dr Howard's) entire posts. Climate change seems to be one of those issues that are immediately polarizing and politicized for some reason. As someone who's admittedly not knowledgeable in that area, it's rare, for me, to find information based on informed opinions that are unbiased. I for one don't equate healthy skepticism with denial. So thanks!

Post: #33

Some people here who are "red pill" seem to instinctively recoil against anything that a liberal/feminist/non-red-pill person might believe.

Do you think this way? Do you believe this is an appropriate way to think?

For instance, if Liberals believe in eating vegetables for your health, do you immediately reject the idea?

If a feminist wants a clean and accessible public park in your neighborhood, do you reject that?

Global warming seems like a huge instance of this to me. Whereas this community is largely fact-based and most beliefs about human nature espoused here are explicitly backed by numerous scientific studies, the doubting on global warming seems like a knee-jerk reaction against people who are not your allies.

Post: #34

(07-18-2014 07:22 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  the doubting on global warming seems like a knee-jerk reaction against people who are not your allies.

For most Republicans or "conservatives" that is probably the case.

However, in my case, I am not even doubting. "Global warming" is neither right nor wrong, it's not even wrong. The concept is ill-defined.

Temperature depends on 1) time, 2) longitude, 3) latitude, and 4) altitude. If you make a mathematically-precise statement, then one can make some measurements and try to assign a truth value to it. Since this is extremely difficult, one will end up assigning probabilities to it, instead of truth values (i.e., "true" or "false"). Saying "the Earth is getting warmer" is not a mathematically-precise statement, as temperature is a function with 4 inputs (time + space), not a function with 1 input (time). What temperature are we talking about, after all? Are we talking of average temperatures? Maximum temperatures? Minimum temperatures?

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. So is methane. Are you measuring all the methane emitted by decomposing organic matter all over the world, including the most inhospitable swamps? Are you taking into account that hydrothermal vents and volcanoes can also emit methane?

It's obvious that emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide is changing the climate somehow. But quantifying that change may be utterly impossible. And claiming that every tornado or rainstorm was due to "global warming" is pretty much like blaming God Neptune for a tsunami.

Global warming is a post-modern god. Whatever über-complex physical, chemical, biological or geological phenomena may be occurring, it's all God Global Warming's fault. Hey, let's stop burning wood in the fireplace to appease God Global Warming!! Talking about "global warming" is mostly theology.

Post: #35

What you are arguing is essentially: It's very complicated to define Global Warming, therefore, it doesn't exist.

You're basically throwing out all the evidence for it, which is far greater than the evidence against it, because it's complicated. I am not a scientist to begin arguing the merits of it, but your thinking pattern here could be applied to anything as a way to dismiss any idea you don't like.

You could just as easily say:

Economics is so large and complex, and economists are often wrong. It's clear that sometimes, economic decisions by certain actors effect the economy as a whole, but it's too difficult to really precisely define. What is "the economy" anyway? What do you really mean?

Post: #36

(07-18-2014 08:18 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  What you are arguing is essentially: It's very complicated to define Global Warming, therefore, it doesn't exist. You're basically throwing out all the evidence for it, which is far greater than the evidence against it

Evidence for or against what? How can you have evidence against something that you didn't even define?

You can measure the concentration of CO2 in various parts of the atmosphere at various time instants. You can measure the salinity and acidity of the ocean at various locations and various depths. You can measure many things. So what?

The mere fact that worshipers of the God of Global Warming seem to believe that carbon dioxide is a poison (instead of the molecule that plants use in photosynthesis) and that electric cars have no carbon emissions means that one can't and shouldn't take them seriously...

Post: #37

Melting of ice caps, rise of global sea levels, overall rise in global temperatures, these things are not controversial and are extremely well supported.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-a...rature-now

This site outlines that there are indeed many ways to calculate global average temperature, and that estimates vary depending on the methodology used. Yet the different methodologies all show the same pattern of an increase in the average global temperature.

Sea level rise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Ice cap melt:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp

Have you never read these things? Because it doesn't sound like you're arguing that Global Warming is a hoax or anything, and this evidence is pretty un-problematic...

Post: #38

(07-18-2014 08:36 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Melting of ice caps, rise of global sea levels, overall rise in global temperatures, these things are not controversial and are extremely well supported.

Well, at least you're talking about quantities that could be measured, instead of masturbatory computer simulations!!

Now, please explain to me how you are going to establish that the melting ice caps and the rising temperatures were caused by carbon emissions. Measurement is already problematic, but establishing causation is quixotic.

Because you have to take into account volcanic activity, natural wildfires (very common in Africa), CO2-emitting and methane-emitting decomposing organic matter, millions of tons of photosynthetic microalgae in all oceans, time-varying solar activity, orbital perturbations, etc.

Academics are overspecialized. No one is an expert on atmospheric physics + biology + geology + astrophysics + orbital mechanics, etc. But as long as funding is guaranteed, no one will care.

Post: #39

Icarus, I'm sure you've seen this thought experiment before:

Is there any evidence that could convince you that Global Warming is a real thing? What would that evidence be?

Post: #40

(07-18-2014 09:02 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Is there any evidence that could convince you that Global Warming is a real thing?

You could rephrase that. Let me do that...

Is there any evidence that would convince me that climate change is a real thing?

No. I don't need any evidence, because it's self-evident that climate change is real. If one emits billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, this will have some effect and change the climate, even if only infinitesimally so. However, it's utterly impossible to quantify the effect of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Hence, "climate change is bullshit".

A truly conservative (i.e., risk-averse) approach would be to assume that the effects of anthropogenic carbon emissions will be catastrophic and start fighting climate change now, regardless of the impossibility of establishing causation. This would require the following:

1) Population control, which is not implementable on a global scale. Who is going to tell Indians to stop breeding like rabbits? At least Deng Xiaoping had the sense to launch the one-child policy in China some 30 years ago. Of course, feminism is the best population control policy there is, but it is a covert policy, rather than an overt one. To make matters worse, feminism is somewhat dysgenic.

2) Less carbon emissions, which would require China and India to commit economic suicide to solve the problem started by Europe during the industrial revolution. Millions would starve. Keep in mind that the synthesis of fertilizer uses natural gas as a source of hydrogen. Food is made of fossil fuels, so to speak.

3) Sequester carbon on a truly massive scale, which would require greening the Sahara Desert, the Southwest of the United States, the whole Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Implementable in terms of engineering, but not so much in political terms.

In the end, the Earth will find a way. If humans don't kill billions of other humans in nuclear wars, pollution and disease will cull the human population and bring it to sustainable levels. Well, since I don't have children, I don't really care that much.

Post: #41

(07-02-2014 02:28 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  I believe that you're absolutely serious

So you're going to call my "appeal to authority" illegitimate, and then name drop Dyson Freeman?

Are you insane or just inconsistent?

Somebody drank a whole lot of Republican/Libertarian/Red Pill/Roissy koolaid.

Is your hatred for so-called liberals so blind that you'll just adopt anything that rankles the left?

Seriously?

I like how you make a ton of ad hominems against the 97% of scientists that agree on climate change.

That really strengthens your argument.

And then to buttress that with IQ, which of course is a clearly a less disputed and more rock solid area of study. Because tests can't be biased, but parts per million of Carbon Dioxide in different levels of an ice core can easily be manipulated for gain.

Clearly the entire science community is either stupid, female, or in the pocket of Big Wind, Big Solar, and Big Battery. I'm sure Elon Musk is cackling somewhere.

That makes sense. That is logical.

It's a grand conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of dupes with hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment. The fact that so much of it can be duplicated is immaterial. The entire endeavor is flawed, by design!

Much like evolution and natural selection. Another scheme cooked up by the Atheist and Feminist left?

What level of certainty do you need in order to realize that this is actually happening?

Is this merely a question of statistics?

Like you're actually looking for some Confidence Interval?

So the powers at RVF are going to totally hitch their wagons to any anti-Left idea no matter how crazy it is.

WIA

(07-01-2014 07:34 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 07:02 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Dispute the guys @ NASA, that's not cool.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And you guys wonder why no one will take you seriously?

Appeals to authority are also not very impressive. Climatology is sort of seen as a scientific field for people who aren't smart enough to do intellectually demanding stuff like theoretical physics. The truth is that climatology is so full of fudging, bad thinking, and bad data, that people who have more ambition and hunger for power than intellect can thrive due to the low standards in the field.

Society also sees medical doctors as smart. Yet, my theoretical physics grad student buddy in grad school used to teach premeds and the physics he taught them was what we usually called "physics for retards". Yes, physicists are arrogant to the point of calling future medical doctors retards. Because a physics grad student with an IQ of 150 sees a merely "above average" premed with an IQ of 120 as a "retard". And the physics grad student's advisor, who may have an IQ of 180, sees the grad student himself as a "retard". It's a ladder full of retards. At the top of that ladder are a few über-mathematicians and Nobel laureate physicists with an IQ of 200 or so. And at the bottom of that ladder are subhuman journalists, who tell the masses what to think. In other words, the average citizen is informed by a pack of morons. So, who gives a shit what people think? The average person does not have the scientific training to understand what is being discussed.

If you are going to appeal to authority, then keep in mind that Professor Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study (of which Einstein was once part of) has objected to alarmist claims on climate change. And so has Lubos Motl, who was once a physics professor at Harvard, and who was one of the brightest minds of his generation. If you can engage these two brilliant men in an intellectual fight and win, you are wasting your amazing talents on RVF. You should be teaching at Caltech, instead.

It is true that we have been emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the past 2 centuries. It's also true that natural fires and volcanic activity also release carbon dioxide. Are you going to send a submarine to the bottom of the ocean to measure methane emissions from hydrothermal vents? Can you even estimate the order of magnitude of the amount of methane and carbon dioxide emitted by those?

And, more importantly, carbon dioxide is not poison. It's what plants "eat" during photosynthesis. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes plants grow faster. Emitting carbon dioxide is to "fertilize the atmosphere". If you want to sequester carbon, you plant a forest and tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide will get transformed into wood. And organic matter naturally releases methane when rotting. The problem of climate models is that you can model the physics reasonably well, but you have no idea how much carbon dioxide and methane the biosphere (from humans to plants to bacteria) are absorbing and emitting. You can get samples of polar ice and guesstimate, and that's it. Consider yourself lucky.

I am not saying that climate change is not a problem. What I am saying is that many so-called experts are deceiving the public by appearing to be more certain than what honesty and humility would warrant. And dishonesty in scientific research, albeit common, is extremely dangerous, which is why I despise climate alarmists, who may have good intentions, but who lack rationality and a healthy dose of skepticism.

All politicized science should be taken with a grain of salt. In climate change, people have an idea then search for evidence to support that idea, instead of looking at all the data, and then drawing rational conclusions. instead, climate scientists cherry pick the shit out of their data, it's hard to believe anything they say.

artic ice sheets are melting, how come nobody mentions that antartic ice sheets havev never been bigger?

how come the last 17 years have been getting cooler rather than warmer?

how come climate change scientists have 1001 excuse for when they're wrong, but offer no alternative explanations when they're right?

how come credible researchers who offer conflicting evidence receive no research grants?

its a political issue, and the scientists involved are becoming hacks

Post: #42

This made me lol today:

Report: Climate Change Skeptics Could Reach Catastrophic Levels By 2020 Wrote:http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-...:1:Default

The concentration of the most ardent deniers recently has now reached a previously unheard-of 1,500 people per million. The U.S. remains the planet’s largest producer of climate change skeptics.

While the EPA report recognized that past efforts to reverse the proliferation of climate change deniers failed to stem the spread of their erroneous beliefs, it suggested that renewed education initiatives and well-informed public debate could at least limit the emergence of the most destructive and stubborn individuals who continue to dispute a conclusion supported by 97 percent of scientists.

However, with the rise of such individuals having only accelerated over time, the report’s authors conceded that it may no longer be possible to eliminate this devastating man-made phenomenon.

Doesn't matter where you stand on this issue, but it's bloody-well-done satire

Post: #43

The Pentagon is integrating climate change threats into all of its "plans, operations, and training" across the entire Defense Department, signaling a comprehensive attempt to tackle the impacts of global warming.

In a 20-page report released on Monday, the Pentagon details its strategic blueprint to address climate change, calling it a "threat multiplier" that has the power to "exacerbate" many of the challenges the U.S. faces today, including "infectious diseases and terrorism."

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf