Quote:What do people think of a kind of environmental Pascal's wager?

That has been my position ever since read about the greenhouse effect. The argument that it's man made may be true,I really don't know.

I'm convinced global warming is a reality and that we need to prepare for it. What if it's NOT man made and we've put in all that effort and money? Well,we'll have cheaper, cleaner energy sources,to supplement/replace a diminishing resource,and we'll have cleaner air and water, things we need anyway.

Of course,our coastal cites will be under water,so perhaps a good time to start thinking of moving inland a bit.

If global warming IS man made and we ignore the harm we're doing and hope for best,we're fucked.

BUT I'm not convinced it's either/or, I think it makes makes sense to accept that it's as likely to be both. Natural, major periodic climate changes are not a secret. I'm simply not able to make an informed assessment either way.The arguments contradict and the science is beyond me.

(March 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote: That's fair Kyuu - I'm undecided until we have more evidence.

It seems to me, that you are decided that man-made global warming isn't real. Maybe you're not, but that's how you're coming across, and I'm not the only one getting that impression.

(March 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote: unless the thermometres were all out in the country, away from the cities, then we would get distorted temps wouldn't we? Or is there something they do to correct it?

No we'd get distorted temperatures if we did that.
You seem to be under the impression that cities kick out lots of heat, but in some way that heat doesn't contribute to the earth's temperature. It does.

The ideal situation would be readings taken everywhere: in cities, in the country, on the sea etc, and averaging over them.

padraic Wrote:If global warming IS man made and we ignore the harm we're doing and hope for best,we're fucked.

Yeah, agree with you totally.


I've noticed that people with "conservative" views are much more likely to claim that man-made global warming is a hoax, or conspiracy or simply a mistake. Anyone have any idea why?

(March 31, 2009 at 10:44 am)lilphil1989 Wrote: I've noticed that people with "conservative" views are much more likely to claim that man-made global warming is a hoax, or conspiracy or simply a mistake. Anyone have any idea why?

My gut feeling is that being the kind of people that believe utterly in free enterprise, no taxation and so on, that somehow they know how to run their lives better than anyone else and anyone who can't do the same isn't worth the effort ... as such the idea of someone else imposing restrictions on them (be that taxation, law or scientists saying that what they are doing is fucking everyone's lives up) is going to be rejected. They're not stupid people, they just don't want to be restricted as far as I can tell.

Whilst the left can often go too far (often way too far IMO ... and I'm one of them) I have no doubt that they do at least believe they are doing the caring about everybody thing ... what the right doesn't seem to get is that if we don't care about others we all end up paying the price.

Kyu

(March 31, 2009 at 10:44 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(March 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote: That's fair Kyuu - I'm undecided until we have more evidence.

It seems to me, that you are decided that man-made global warming isn't real. Maybe you're not, but that's how you're coming across, and I'm not the only one getting that impression.

I am fairly decided about it - that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to see reason when it presents itself. If I can't see that I'm being dogmatic about something and someone tells me, then I'll reassess what I believe and to the extent I believe it.

So as far as this goes, I've decided to remain in the middle as much as I can, at least until I can learn more about it and in the interest of debate. That's why I was interested as to what you had to say about the temps. It makes sense.

And my tendency to jump onboard with an idea without first getting sufficient evidence is probably the result of my being young. I'll change, but I'm new to this whole debate thing so I'm simply learning about what I need to do before I embrace an idea. And trust me, I'm learning a lot here.

I think AGW (anthropogenic (or man made) global warming) is simply a new religion. It seems to copy religion in how it presents itself - man the sinner against god the earth, we have to pay penance in the form of carbon taxes etc. Frankly its just another money making scam - just like the popes of the middle ages 'when a coin in the offertory rings a soul from purgatory springs' but now youre gonna get taxed for every breath you take - despite CO2 being a basic building block of life and plant food.

If you applied an atheistic mindset in assessing AGW you would have to say 'where is the proof?' And yet when you look for factual support for the AGW hypothesis there is none. You apply the scientific method to AGW and you realise that it is an unproven theory that has no real empirical data to back it up. The whole AGW case is built on computer models that get further and further from reality as time goes on. If you look at reality satellite temps say the world is cooling, the poles are growing, as are glaciers, theres record cold and snow around the world, polar bear populations are increasing etc etc.

Some people here have raised the precautionary principle that as a precaution even if its wrong its still good to do something but I ask when the world is cooling and the cold kills much more people and life than the warmth (the warm periods are the golden ages of the earth where life flourishes) why are we spending trillions on an unproven non existent problem when that money could be put to better use restoring habitats, feeding, housing and educating the poor, developing clean technologies etc.

Weve been scammed big time - AGW is the biggest hoax out and theyll use every emotional argument to get at your heart strings and ignore facts and science.

---

(March 31, 2009 at 10:44 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(March 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm)athoughtfulman Wrote: That's fair Kyuu - I'm undecided until we have more evidence.

I've noticed that people with "conservative" views are much more likely to claim that man-made global warming is a hoax, or conspiracy or simply a mistake. Anyone have any idea why?

I think that is simply just polarising the debate by using politics and achieves little. I think we need to take politics out of it and look at the facts - are sea levels rising - no, is the world getting warmer - the satellites say no, is CO2 warming the atmosphere - well they cant prove it is and natural climatic cycles explain quite easily all the climate fluctuations to date.

(April 1, 2009 at 6:47 am)twawki Wrote: despite CO2 being a basic building block of life and plant food.

Unfortunately, there's no-one playing lego with atmospheric carbon dioxide.

(April 1, 2009 at 6:47 am)twawki Wrote: You apply the scientific method to AGW and you realise that it is an unproven theory that has no real empirical data to back it up.... If you look at reality satellite temps say the world is cooling, the poles are growing, as are glaciers, theres record cold and snow around the world, polar bear populations are increasing etc etc.

Perhaps provide some references instead of simply making statements with no evidence to back it up.

(April 1, 2009 at 6:47 am)twawki Wrote: AGW is the biggest hoax out and theyll use every emotional argument to get at your heart strings and ignore facts and science.

The word Hoax suggests deliberate misleading, you made vague references to "money-making", care to expand on the motives for the "hoax"?


On mentioning political stances, I wasn't trying to polarise the debate at all, simply making an observation, and trying obtain an explanation.


As an undergraduate physicist, I've recently taken a ten week course on global warming, so I understand the science reasonably well. This is a scientific issue, if you'd like to debate the science I'd love to, but "It isn't true because I say so" adds nothing; if anything that's the replica of religion.



EDIT: twawki what do you mean when you describe yourself as a "christian atheist"? That you're an atheist only with respect to the christian god? or a christian starting to disbelieve? or....?
Sorry, not on topic, but it confused me

(April 1, 2009 at 12:24 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: but "It isn't true because I say so" adds nothing; if anything that's the replica of religion.

I absolutely agree!

(April 1, 2009 at 12:24 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: twawki what do you mean when you describe yourself as a "christian atheist"? That you're an atheist only with respect to the christian god? or a christian starting to disbelieve? or....?

I occasionally refer to myself as a Christian or Catholic atheist because I am culturally Christian/Catholic but my stance is atheist ... I first heard it when someone referred to herself as a Jewish atheist.

Kyu

Sorry for jumping in late, but I have some thoughts to share.

(March 15, 2009 at 6:37 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Anyone been following the whole global warming movement? I suppose it's hard to miss with it being in every newspaper, everyday. Or did anyone hear about the 89 new snowfall records on just one day, that Antarctica's snowfall has doubled, or that world sea ice is at a 25 year high?

I doubt it.

That's not proof of anything. In fact Global Warming doesn't mean it will be warm all the time, it actually means the weather will get freaky. Just pointing to some high records does not disprove it at all.

Quote:The media hypes global warming to no end, but despite there being evidence to the contrary, they refuse to recognise it. The global warming movement has become a religion, with sceptics being silenced by global warming converts.

Actually, I find people who deny global warming to be far more dogmatic than those who go around promoting it. Now I have no love for greenpeace or crazy environmentalists but the deniers are worse IMO. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ being one example.

There are a couple of things I noticed in your posts that raise alarm bells for me. One being the topic name. There seems to be a general "distrust the scientists" and conspiracy vibe in the beginning of this thread. Saying you don't believe something because it comes from the media seems silly to me. It's perfectly healthy to say you're skeptical of the media but to flat out deny it because the media reports it is not.

The thing is is that global warming is happening but there is a legitimate debate on the cause, level, and consequences of the phenomena. More research needs to be done and I have no love for those who deny it or promote it as a doomsday event.

Please note, I have never even seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and don't plan to, my opinions on global warming have come from scientists.

I highly recommend listening to this podcast episode: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/...=1&pid=174 and if you go straight to 50 minutes in there's a good segment on it global warming and I'd like to note the guy talking about it is a scientist. -_^

No offence,but why should I give any credence to a confused individual who refers to himself as "a "chrisitian/catholic' atheist? Imo those terms are oxymorons,period. IE a 'Christian' is one who believes in the teachings of Christ, which specifically include a belief in God.(simplest example ;"The Lord's Prayer").An atheist is one who does not believe in god(s)


My standard reference for word definitions is The Concise Oxford Dictionary.One may of course change the standard meaning of a word,but it seems a bits pointless if others simply don't understand or agree with your meaning. Standard meanings of words is the basis for meaningful oral and written communication.


The post itself seems to me more like a paranoid polemic than a reasoned argument.

(April 1, 2009 at 12:24 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(April 1, 2009 at 6:47 am)twawki Wrote: despite CO2 being a basic building block of life and plant food.

Unfortunately, there's no-one playing lego with atmospheric carbon dioxide.

(April 1, 2009 at 6:47 am)twawki Wrote: You apply the scientific method to AGW and you realise that it is an unproven theory that has no real empirical data to back it up.... If you look at reality satellite temps say the world is cooling, the poles are growing, as are glaciers, theres record cold and snow around the world, polar bear populations are increasing etc etc.

Perhaps provide some references instead of simply making statements with no evidence to back it up.

(April 1, 2009 at 6:47 am)twawki Wrote: AGW is the biggest hoax out and theyll use every emotional argument to get at your heart strings and ignore facts and science.

The word Hoax suggests deliberate misleading, you made vague references to "money-making", care to expand on the motives for the "hoax"?


On mentioning political stances, I wasn't trying to polarise the debate at all, simply making an observation, and trying obtain an explanation.


As an undergraduate physicist, I've recently taken a ten week course on global warming, so I understand the science reasonably well. This is a scientific issue, if you'd like to debate the science I'd love to, but "It isn't true because I say so" adds nothing; if anything that's the replica of religion.



EDIT: twawki what do you mean when you describe yourself as a "christian atheist"? That you're an atheist only with respect to the christian god? or a christian starting to disbelieve? or....?
Sorry, not on topic, but it confused me

Hey Lilphil lots of questions so will answer briefly;

No proof Carbon dioxide provides warming
http://www.co2science.org/education/expe...global.php
Carbon dioxide - building block of life - growers normally increase CO2 levels to 1000ppm to increase plant growth.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Positive-Effec...th&id=1607
Satellite temps showing cooling
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/20/na...s-go-poof/
Arctic sea ice
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/ind...46&page=29
Antarctic sea ice
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image..._hires.png
Growing glaciers
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
Record cold and snow
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor...l_warming/
Polar bear populations increasing fivefold
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment...852551.ece
Sea level rise diminishing
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3116

Yes the hoax is deliberate. After 30 years have any of the scary predictions come true? No. What is the whole AGW case built on? computer models! What is the climate doing? Cooling!

IPCC under the microscope
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Al Gore hypocrisy and refusal to debate
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0...17,00.html

James Hansen fiddles the figures
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-...ate_chief/
Regarding politics - there are those on both sides of the political spectrum in support of and opposed to AGW - I think to debate it rationally we stic to the facts

One other thing that needs serious attention is the sun. The AGW crowd claim the sun has minimal influence on our climate. Yet the grand maxima of the sun in the late 20th century correlated well with the brief period of warming, as did the warming PDO. Now however the sun has gone into slumber - when this has happened before deep cold hits the earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/...htm?friend

Christian atheist - means at the moment Im open to both views

---

(April 1, 2009 at 7:40 pm)padraic Wrote: No offence,but why should I give any credence to a confused individual who refers to himself as "a "chrisitian/catholic' atheist? Imo those terms are oxymorons,period. IE a 'Christian' is one who believes in the teachings of Christ, which specifically include a belief in God.(simplest example ;"The Lord's Prayer").An atheist is one who does not believe in god(s)


My standard reference for word definitions is The Concise Oxford Dictionary.One may of course change the standard meaning of a word,but it seems a bits pointless if others simply don't understand or agree with your meaning. Standard meanings of words is the basis for meaningful oral and written communication.


The post itself seems to me more like a paranoid polemic than a reasoned argument.

No offence taken but I am certainly not confused - I know what I beleive but realise that life and experience affects belief. But to say because i dont fit your paradigm therefore I have no credence in your eyes is simply a value judgement on your part. Is it OK for people to discard you because they may not agree with something about you? Worth thinking about.

Back on topic - more and more scientists speak out AGAINST global warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/31/dr...rtisement/

---

(April 1, 2009 at 2:13 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Sorry for jumping in late, but I have some thoughts to share.

(March 15, 2009 at 6:37 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: Anyone been following the whole global warming movement? I suppose it's hard to miss with it being in every newspaper, everyday. Or did anyone hear about the 89 new snowfall records on just one day, that Antarctica's snowfall has doubled, or that world sea ice is at a 25 year high?

I doubt it.

That's not proof of anything. In fact Global Warming doesn't mean it will be warm all the time, it actually means the weather will get freaky. Just pointing to some high records does not disprove it at all.

Quote:The media hypes global warming to no end, but despite there being evidence to the contrary, they refuse to recognise it. The global warming movement has become a religion, with sceptics being silenced by global warming converts.

Actually, I find people who deny global warming to be far more dogmatic than those who go around promoting it. Now I have no love for greenpeace or crazy environmentalists but the deniers are worse IMO. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ being one example.

There are a couple of things I noticed in your posts that raise alarm bells for me. One being the topic name. There seems to be a general "distrust the scientists" and conspiracy vibe in the beginning of this thread. Saying you don't believe something because it comes from the media seems silly to me. It's perfectly healthy to say you're skeptical of the media but to flat out deny it because the media reports it is not.

The thing is is that global warming is happening but there is a legitimate debate on the cause, level, and consequences of the phenomena. More research needs to be done and I have no love for those who deny it or promote it as a doomsday event.

Please note, I have never even seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and don't plan to, my opinions on global warming have come from scientists.

I highly recommend listening to this podcast episode: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/...=1&pid=174 and if you go straight to 50 minutes in there's a good segment on it global warming and I'd like to note the guy talking about it is a scientist. -_^

The field of climate science is an emerging field and there is much we keep learning every month. However when one looks at the basics and sticks to facts we know the following for sure;

1. The climate acts and has always acted in natural cycles

2. The current theory of CO2 causing global warming is unproven - even the IPCC acknowledges this

3. For 30 years the scary predictions about earths fever, drastic sea level rise etc is not based on observation but on computer model projections. If we still dont know everything about the climate then how can these models be accurate. If the climate continues to behave opposite to the climate models (the wolrd is cooling and not warming) then we have to say the models are wrong.

4. We need rigorous scientific debate on the topic. If as the natural climatic observations and numerous scientists say we have entered a period of 20-30 years cooling and we are spending trillions on warming - we will be unprepared for the cooling, many lives will be lost (see little ice age).

5. Extreme weather is a result of cooling and not warming.

I would hope we would have global warming because the warm periods of the earth are when life (including mankind) flourishes, there is greater diversity of species etc. It is the cold that kills.