Global warming: the chilling effect on free spe...

Originally posted by Hank Rearden
its funny SS you never really want evidence just say what you want, just say hey man give me numbers that that fit with an opinion. If they fit against me I can fight them, but if they help SS's opinion then its shale be viewed as indesputable proof even though nothing has ever been established accept some one found something not on red hot pawn. thats not really evidence or proof. and its certainly not fact.

I'm just quoting freely available statistics. Occassionally, I go into the scientific literature, but I never use data that is not the scientific consensus.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Nothing misleading about it CO2 has increased .003% as a percentage of the atmosphere. Of course it dosen't sound so great for the scaremongers cause, so they call it "misleading". bully for the scaremongers.

Now back to the original post, I'll need to revise it for the terminally slow. We are not in a parked running car in a garage, the actual (not dou ...[text shortened]... g plants to "droughts" proves...? How big a guvamint grant you think you're entitled to?

What can I do to explain this to you? I've tried being logical and coherent - perhaps being random and chaotic might work for you??

The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 36%. You cannot deny this. The maths is simple. You take the current CO2 conc. (381ppm) and divide by the baseline (in this case 280ppm, prior to the industrial revolution). This gives you a figure of 1.36. Multiply it by 100, and you get 136%, a 36% increase over the 1750 figure.

Your figure is the DIFFERENCE between, well, I'm not sure exactly what because you have not produced your original figures.

You call us "scaremongers". Tell my, why is the CO2 concentration nearly 100 ppm (~30😵 higher than it has been for the last 650,000 years then, if not for human activity.

You know the thing that really annoys me? People like you, who claim to stand for liberty, but really stand for big business, and the deaths of the hundreds of millions of innocent people who will die as a result of your appathy.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What can I do to explain this to you? I've tried being logical and coherent - perhaps being random and chaotic might work for you??

The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 36%. You cannot deny this. The maths is simple. You take the current CO2 conc. (381ppm) and divide by the baseline (in this case 280ppm, prior to the industrial revo ...[text shortened]... ths of the hundreds of millions of innocent people who will die as a result of your appathy.

So you deny that going from .027% to .03% is a difference of .003%...hmmmm that's curious.

It is true I stand for liberty, to live free from you and the likes fo you with your grasping hands. Thanks to big business you have something to type out your vile collectivist rants on. Thanks to big business millions of people live longer healthier lives than ever in history. Thanks to big business thousands of people are employed so that they can be taxed so you can live off the backs of the productive.

Try not to be a hypocrite.

Above all else be true to thine own self (this means sort out the contradictions, because they are the product of a muddled mind.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
People like you, who claim to stand for liberty, but really stand for big business, and the deaths of the hundreds of millions of innocent people who will die as a result of your appathy.

You know, apart from marketing, the other problem with environmentalists is hyperbole. That someone's apathy will cause hundreds of millions of deaths -- wow. That's REALLY apathetic. Deadly apathetic.

Of course, no one has died yet. But IN THE FUTURE PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT. What a guilt trip! You know, a lot of us have wives -- and wives do exactly the same thing. Have you noticed? And what do men do? Turn up the TV.

Actually, what we all expect is for technology (which got us into this mess -- if it actually is a mess) to get us out. Nobody is going to give up air conditioning and his brand new SUV because a bunch of smug environmentalists "assure" us that abstinance is the only way. It isn't the only way -- can't be.

The best way, at the end of the day, is going to be the one that makes somebody a buck. That will get the problem solved. Not wearing coats in the house or eating cold dinners for the next 60 years.

Oh and don't give me the "oil companies control all the technology so nothing can be done." That's pure conspiracy theory. If it makes somebody money, the solutions will start pouring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: at the moment, their's no money in preventing, slowing, or otherwise interferring with global warming. So don't expect a lot to change.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
this is all we've got to gain:

all that money spent to discuss/study/fight global warming, or study nematodes, or study Elizabethan literature, could instead be used ...

in the short term, to feed starving children in Africa.
in the mid term, pay for prophylatics so they wouldn't have to starve in the long-term.
in the long term, pay for stable, non-corrupt governments, so they wouldn't have to starve again, ever.

Y2k spending was vital. Without preventative action, there would have been all sorts of problems. I was Y2K officer in a Financial Institution, and most of our software and hardware had issues. Its interesting that you brought it up as there are a lot of parrallels between Y2K and Global Warming. Preventative action was cheap (compared to what would have happened if nothing had been done until it was too late. Loss of trading alone would have amounted to trillions), and there were some naysayers, like your good self, who like to think they were proved right due to the fact that nothing really happened. Of course, you like to forget that the yaysayers preventative action stopped the nightmare scenario.

You do realise that any money spent on lowering emissions, will be money given to companies to install the necessary filters, or to consultants to advise how to lower emissions, etc, etc.

You make it sound like dead money. Where did you get that impression, or have you just not thought about it? Even you should realise that money spent on Y2K wasn't money that was stuck in a whole and burned, it was given to workers.

Are you proposing a halt in funding to science while proposing an increase in funding to science?

It would be much better if you put some thought into what you write.

One final question... would you agree that the earth along with its atmosphere, rivers and oceans are the life support system for all these people that you are going to save?

D

Originally posted by spruce112358
If it makes somebody money, the solutions will start pouring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: at the moment, their's no money in preventing, slowing, or otherwise interferring with global warming. So don't expect a lot to change.

Burning of oil is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. Most of the members of the current U.S. government are oil execs, some even have oil tankers named after them... http://glennz.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/tanker.jpg

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that oil interests are behind some of the decisions of the U.S. government.

How can you say there's no money in preventing global warming? That's just parroting some anti-change government spin. Think about it for a while. Entrepreneurs are people who see an opening in the market, and go for it. Change in legislation regarding emmissions, would create a huge demand in that sector, resulting in hundreds of new companies employing thousands upon thousands of people.

No money? What you mean to say is no money for the biggest companies at the top of the food chain. George Bush and his cronies would have you belief that trying to lower emissions would create a huge deficit in the nation's money. What he is actually saying is that the biggest polluters would lose out on some of their profits (which are currently at record levels), to pay others to bring them into line.

The solutions are already there. The money is already there. The biggest hurdle is that the most influential country in the world is being run by people in the pockets of the biggest industrialists in the world. Countries like India and China are following suit.

Nobody is asking people to get rid of their SUV's. If city drivers really need to drive a vehicle for status' sake, then why not a hybrid SUV? http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/

You can't change the world in an instant, all we can do is try to take one step at a time. Even if that step is just to get somebody who parrots an industrialist's lies to think about what they are saying.

D

Originally posted by Palynka
Come on, you're also smearing all with one brush as well, by calling them 'deniers'.

My "smearing" by using the descriptor denier instead of skeptic, is hardly on a par with Ritter's smearing that people who believe in global warming are anti-freedom of speech.

How can you even compare the two?

D

Originally posted by Palynka
That's funny. So we can only discuss a scenario AFTER it becomes real?

You called me on why I didn't react stronger to the suggestion that legislators were outlawing global warming denial. I apologise for not reacting to something which didn't exist in the provided link and for my inability to see inside your head.

D

Originally posted by Wajoma
So doubling the CO2 concentration is hardly comparable to a .003% increase, and you said you were going to introduce some real science.

You're trying to mislead, wont work, we weren't discussing MIC.

You're dismissing the impact of an increase of CO2 because it is such as small percentage of the overall atmosphere. My point was that small doesn't necessarily equal inconsequential, as you tried to suggest, and which xs applauded.

Also, using your simplistic maths, a doubling of CO2 levels from 0.03% to 0.06% represents a tiny increase of 0.03%. Is that small enough for you to dismiss? When, in your limited mind, is small small enough to be dismissed?

D

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, if you assume that every year has a 50:50 chance of being warmer or cooler, and each years temperature is independant of the previous years temperature, then the odds are 2^22 - 1.

[edit; of course, I mean the chances of 23 consecutive years being randomly warmer than the average is 4.2 million to one. If there is a reason, let's say CO2 emissio ...[text shortened]... ess, because that CO2 has not been taken into account (i.e. non-randomly shifting background.)]

I dont have the formula right in front of me but basically there are two things wrong with your statement.
1. the probability of a series of 23 consecutive heads occuring in say 400 consecutive coint tosses is not the same as 23 consecutive heads occuring in 23 tosses. The 23 years were exactly 50% warmer and 50% cooler than the average over the 23 year period.
To illustrate toss a coin 10 times. By your calculation the probability of getting 3 heads in a row is 8:1. Yet I can guarantee that it will occur.

2. each years temperature is not independant of the last and you will infact get different results depending on when you start your year. In a system where the temperature gets randomly cooler or hotter than the previous year we can actually expect an upward or downward trend ie it has >50% probability.

3. Was there a period of 23 consecutive years that was cooler than the average? If so was that global cooling? What caused it?

The worrying thing about the current trend is not the fact that it is getting warmer, but the fact that it is getting warmer by a significant amount and that we know some of the main causes of this and know that they are not about to go away in a hurry.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Try not to be a hypocrite.

Funny, I was thinking the same of you. You laugh and berate the religious Creationists because they ignore the scientific evidence of evolution, yet you ignore the scientific evidence of global warming. Both are pretty much equally well accepted by the scientific community, but you just think you know better, right?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Of course, no one has died yet.

Except the 30,000 people in Europe in 2003. And the people of New Orleans. But apart from them, you're absolutely right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont have the formula right in front of me but basically there are two things wrong with your statement.
1. the probability of a series of 23 consecutive heads occuring in say 400 consecutive coint tosses is not the same as 23 consecutive heads occuring in 23 tosses. The 23 years were exactly 50% warmer and 50% cooler than the average over the 23 year ...[text shortened]... we know some of the main causes of this and know that they are not about to go away in a hurry.

Sorry t, but I disagree.

1) As for your coin toss, well, yes, it is likely you'll get three heads consectutively - the odds are 8-1 and you are flipping the coin 10 times!. ((10/8)*100)/2= 63% chance) The chances of getting 4 heads in a row are 16 - 1, and therefore unlikely ((10/16*100)/2 = 32% chance). Unlikely here means "a less than 50% chance".

The odds of any year being warmer or cooler than the long term average are 50% by definition, otherwise the average wouldn't be the average! Thus, the chances of two years being consecutively warmer are 4-1, 3 years 8-1, 4 years 16-1, 5 years 32-1, and so on.

There were many years on record cooler than the long term average (1961 - 1991). These all occurred in the earlier part of that timeframe, thus, the actual long term average probably overestimates the real long term mean.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

The odds of any year being warmer or cooler than the long term average are 50% by definition, otherwise the average wouldn't be the average!

only if one year's temperature doesn't affect the next.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
only if one year's temperature doesn't affect the next.

And your evidence that it does?