The nub of the climate change thing problem

[Chizzang]

Just to be clear... John,
You're not suggesting that the climate isn't changing right..?

You're simply saying that we're not certain of the reasons
We're all past the "its not changing" part though right..?

Is there anyone on earth who believes the climate is or ever HAS been "static"? Ever?

You really don't know your party do you...
You were also one of the "smart guys" that told me 8 months ago Trump wouldn't last 3 weeks



It's amazing how much denial the upper crust of the GOP suffers from

[kalm]

Do you have an epidemiological study that says renewables can't?

It's certainly not an epidemiological study but read smaller faster lighter denser cheaper and you'll get an idea of the scale/space needed for wind and/or solar to having a major impact. I don't think we've invented the solution yet so we need to innovate, innovate and innovate.

Agreed (I was being a smart arse. )

Oil has enjoyed a massive and subsidized market advantage and that ain't gonna go away overnight, still there are some very positive things happening...


http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top- ... nergy.html

[JohnStOnge]

ust to be clear... John,
You're not suggesting that the climate isn't changing right..?

You're simply saying that we're not certain of the reasons
We're all past the "its not changing" part though right..?

This is cliche but nevertheless true: Of course the climate is changing. It has NEVER been in a steady state. It has ALWAYS been in a state of change.

And yes you are correct in that I am saying that we are not certain...if we stick to the rules of science...with respect to the reasons.

[JohnStOnge]

Anyone who thinks climate science methods are as rigorous as epidemiological methods to test for the relation between tobacco and cancer does not know what they are talking about.

While I know people get ridiculed for saying this it's nevertheless true:

If we really stuck to the rules of inference we would not be saying that smoking causes cancer. That's because, no matter how much data there are, it's observational study. If we stuck to the rules we would be saying there is an association between smoking and cancer consistent with the BELIEF that smoking causes cancer.

And it's also true that the kind of evidence we have for the proposition that smoking causes cancer would never be accepted in a situation where a drug manufacturer was trying to claim that their new drug has some positive effect. For example: If someone came up with a new blood pressure drug and wanted to have it approved based on the kind of evidence we have for the proposition that smoking causes cancer they would be rejected. They would not be allowed to make the claim.

To make the claim they would have to have controlled experiments, clinical trials, to support it.

[Chizzang]

ust to be clear... John,
You're not suggesting that the climate isn't changing right..?

You're simply saying that we're not certain of the reasons
We're all past the "its not changing" part though right..?

This is cliche but nevertheless true: Of course the climate is changing. It has NEVER been in a steady state. It has ALWAYS been in a state of change.

And yes you are correct in that I am saying that we are not certain...if we stick to the rules of science...with respect to the reasons.

All sarcasm and cleverness aside john
changing in a way that is not optimal for sustaining life - as its presently distributed

frankly I don't really care
I'll be dead soon - but generally speaking - its probably worth looking into

[JohnStOnge]

All sarcasm and cleverness aside john
changing in a way that is not optimal for sustaining life - as its presently distributed

It always has been. That's one thing I've noted for many years. Even going back to when I was a State biologist in the 1980s. There has been this idea that there is some "balance" in the planetary set of ecosystems. They're in balance and if we do something to disturb the balance it's this big disaster. In reality there has never been a static ecosystem. Everything has always been in a constant state of change. More than 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. Extinction is no big deal. It's inevitable for every species. So on and so forth.

The fact that the climate is changing in a way that is not optimal for sustaining life as it is currently distributed does not mean it won't sustain life. Doesn't mean there will be less life in terms of total biomass. Doesn't mean we can't deal with it for the foreseeable future.

And the big thing is that we do not know that doing all the stuff the climate change alarmists want us to do means our own species will be better off 100 years from now.

As I've written many times before: If you look at what is believed about climate and about the history of life on this planet you see that it's believed that the climate has been substantially warmer than it is now as well as substantially warmer than it will be 100 years from now if climate science is dead on with its projections for the overwhelming majority of the tenure of life on this planet. In geological terms we are in a relatively cool period and now and will still be in a relatively cool period 100 years from now even if climate scientists turn out to be exactly correct in their projections.

[Chizzang]

All sarcasm and cleverness aside john
changing in a way that is not optimal for sustaining life - as its presently distributed

It always has been. That's one thing I've noted for many years. Even going back to when I was a State biologist in the 1980s. There has been this idea that there is some "balance" in the planetary set of ecosystems. They're in balance and if we do something to disturb the balance it's this big disaster. In reality there has never been a static ecosystem. Everything has always been in a constant state of change. More than 99% of the species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. Extinction is no big deal. It's inevitable for every species. So on and so forth.

The fact that the climate is changing in a way that is not optimal for sustaining life as it is currently distributed does not mean it won't sustain life. Doesn't mean there will be less life in terms of total biomass. Doesn't mean we can't deal with it for the foreseeable future.

And the big thing is that we do not know that doing all the stuff the climate change alarmists want us to do means our own species will be better off 100 years from now.

As I've written many times before: If you look at what is believed about climate and about the history of life on this planet you see that it's believed that the climate has been substantially warmer than it is now as well as substantially warmer than it will be 100 years from now if climate science is dead on with its projections for the overwhelming majority of the tenure of life on this planet. In geological terms we are in a relatively cool period and now and will still be in a relatively cool period 100 years from now even if climate scientists turn out to be exactly correct in their projections.

As long as you're not arguing that we shouldn't "seek to understand" the expediency of change...
The earth is NOT like the Bible - The end of all learning

I repeat:
As long as you understand that we need to continually seek to LEARN MORE
The conservative mind set on this topic can be frustrating when the "learning" door is closed

[JohnStOnge]

As long as you understand that we need to continually seek to LEARN MORE
The conservative mind set on this topic can be frustrating when the "learning" door is closed

I don't agree with your assessment of the conservative mindset. To me, the conservative outlook when it comes to science is that there are rules of inference and we should stick to them. That doesn't mean you're not seeking to learn more. It means that you maintain discipline and don't start making dogmatic cause and effect statements when those statements aren't really supported if you stick to the rules of inference.

And the rules of inference aren't arbitrary. They're there for a reason. They make perfect sense.

Saying, "Human activity causes climate change" is a violation of the rules of inference.

[Chizzang]

As long as you understand that we need to continually seek to LEARN MORE
The conservative mind set on this topic can be frustrating when the "learning" door is closed

I don't agree with your assessment of the conservative mindset. To me, the conservative outlook when it comes to science is that there are rules of inference and we should stick to them. That doesn't mean you're not seeking to learn more. It means that you maintain discipline and don't start making dogmatic cause and effect statements when those statements aren't really supported if you stick to the rules of inference.

And the rules of inference aren't arbitrary. They're there for a reason. They make perfect sense.

Saying, "Human activity causes climate change" is a violation of the rules of inference.

John,
I'm not talking about the rules of inference or not applying the scientific method
I agree with you there...

I'm talking about the general attitude
Instead of just saying NOPE... (The end)

It would be nice to see more "I'm not sure, we really need to figure this out"

[GannonFan]

I don't agree with your assessment of the conservative mindset. To me, the conservative outlook when it comes to science is that there are rules of inference and we should stick to them. That doesn't mean you're not seeking to learn more. It means that you maintain discipline and don't start making dogmatic cause and effect statements when those statements aren't really supported if you stick to the rules of inference.

And the rules of inference aren't arbitrary. They're there for a reason. They make perfect sense.

Saying, "Human activity causes climate change" is a violation of the rules of inference.

John,
I'm not talking about the rules of inference or not applying the scientific method
I agree with you there...

I'm talking about the general attitude
Instead of just saying NOPE... (The end)

It would be nice to see more "I'm not sure, we really need to figure this out"

The attitude exists on both sides of the argument - one side is saying "nope" like you indicate and they other side is saying "settled science and let's prosecute deniers". Both sides are wrong but that doesn't resonate in this environment (no pun intended) of "the other side is evil and compromise is impossible".

[AZGrizFan]

Is there anyone on earth who believes the climate is or ever HAS been "static"? Ever?

You really don't know your party do you...
You were also one of the "smart guys" that told me 8 months ago Trump wouldn't last 3 weeks



It's amazing how much denial the upper crust of the GOP suffers from

"My" party doesn't deny climate change. "My" party has never stated the climate is "static". WTF are you talking about?

[Chizzang]

You really don't know your party do you...
You were also one of the "smart guys" that told me 8 months ago Trump wouldn't last 3 weeks



It's amazing how much denial the upper crust of the GOP suffers from

"My" party doesn't deny climate change. "My" party has never stated the climate is "static". WTF are you talking about?

I see...

http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/03/congre ... e-deniers/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... s-congress

[AZGrizFan]

"My" party doesn't deny climate change. "My" party has never stated the climate is "static". WTF are you talking about?

I see...

http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/03/congre ... e-deniers/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... s-congress

They deny what over 97 percent of scientists say is happening — current human activity creates the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat within the atmosphere and cause climate change.

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL-04): “I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL-06): “The science that shows we haven’t had a temperature increase in 17 or 18 years. The science that says global climate change is more a function of nature and solar activity than it is anything man does.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): “With 7 billion humans on earth, there is likely some impact on nature. The last few years clearly show, though, that there is no concrete scientific consensus on the extent to which humans contribute to climate change.”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-08): “While I am concerned about the potential effects of global warming, I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations.”

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR): “Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things.

There is a vast gulf of difference between denying THIS and denying that the climate changes and isn't static.

[AZGrizFan]

So, to sum up: Chizzang is wrong. Once again.

[Chizzang]

So, to sum up: Chizzang is wrong. Once again.

Meh...
Not really but I know it's desperately what you need
These Politicians are all paid by the petroleum Industry - and told exactly what to say

Look, we're already dead (as far as this debate is concerned)
But future generations will look at these men differently than you see them
The idea that these guys are "Serious thinkers and well studied" instead of just paid deniers

The utter lack of curiosity and interest in what is actually happening
by people paid to be interested - should be alarming

The debate has been effectively poisoned by the fringe dullards on both sides
and poisoned by the profiteers on both sides - it is now meaningless to debate

[AZGrizFan]

So, to sum up: Chizzang is wrong. Once again.

Meh...
Not really but I know it's desperately what you need
These Politicians are all paid by the petroleum Industry - and told exactly what to say

Look, we're already dead (as far as this debate is concerned)
But future generations will look at these men differently than you see them
The idea that these guys are "Serious thinkers and well studied" instead of just paid deniers

The utter lack of curiosity and interest in what is actually happening
by people paid to be interested - should be alarming

The debate has been effectively poisoned by the fringe dullards on both sides
and poisoned by the profiteers on both sides - it is now meaningless to debate

Not really? You provide two links in an attempt to prove that my party is full of "deniers" who insist the climate isn't changing. Yet, your OWN link disproved your point pretty dramatically. Virtually NO ONE that they included in their so-called "denier" group is stating that the climate is "static". Almost to a person they all agree it's changing, and has always changed. The question is: how much impact has MAN had on the movement of the climate. And it's a valid question that those worshipping at the feet of the global warming alarmists have been virtually unable to answer without almost continually fudging results, using flawed data, or cherry picking data to meet a pre-conceived conclusion/expectation.

Additionally, virtually no one is saying or exhibiting an "utter lack of curiosity or interest in what is actually happening"....not sure where you get that. But questioning the flawed science doesn't make them "deniers". It doesn't even make them wrong.

It just makes YOU wrong. Again.

But I do agree about the profiteers. And that money flows both ways, my friend. Getting your snout into the trough of "global warming money" provided by our benevolent federal government is pretty strong incentive to be a "believer". And let's be honest: At the end of the day, the government has MUUUUUCH deeper pockets than the oil industry.

[YoUDeeMan]

The debate has been effectively poisoned by the fringe dullards on both sides
and poisoned by the profiteers on both sides - it is now meaningless to debate

Thanks, Bush!


Oh, wait...thanks, Gore!


And... thanks, Obama!

[Chizzang]

Meh...
Not really but I know it's desperately what you need
These Politicians are all paid by the petroleum Industry - and told exactly what to say

Look, we're already dead (as far as this debate is concerned)
But future generations will look at these men differently than you see them
The idea that these guys are "Serious thinkers and well studied" instead of just paid deniers

The utter lack of curiosity and interest in what is actually happening
by people paid to be interested - should be alarming

The debate has been effectively poisoned by the fringe dullards on both sides
and poisoned by the profiteers on both sides - it is now meaningless to debate

Not really? You provide two links in an attempt to prove that my party is full of "deniers" who insist the climate isn't changing. Yet, your OWN link disproved your point pretty dramatically. Virtually NO ONE that they included in their so-called "denier" group is stating that the climate is "static". Almost to a person they all agree it's changing, and has always changed. The question is: how much impact has MAN had on the movement of the climate. And it's a valid question that those worshipping at the feet of the global warming alarmists have been virtually unable to answer without almost continually fudging results, using flawed data, or cherry picking data to meet a pre-conceived conclusion/expectation.

Additionally, virtually no one is saying or exhibiting an "utter lack of curiosity or interest in what is actually happening"....not sure where you get that. But questioning the flawed science doesn't make them "deniers". It doesn't even make them wrong.

It just makes YOU wrong. Again.

But I do agree about the profiteers. And that money flows both ways, my friend. Getting your snout into the trough of "global warming money" provided by our benevolent federal government is pretty strong incentive to be a "believer". And let's be honest: At the end of the day, the government has MUUUUUCH deeper pockets than the oil industry.

You're actually making my point for me...
So desperate and so anxious to show how thoughtful the paid stooges are
Tom they're just on the payroll and reading the script handed to them

Everybody's got to pick the most comfortable chair to sit in
the head space that suits your disposition

The deniers
(or as you're fond of pointing out)
more correctly the Oil Industry science report believers
vs.
The Alarmists
(which is anybody that believes moving carbon from the ground to the air isn't good camp)

I know it's important for you to be right about this because that's the Republican Stance on it
and it's my job as a Liberal to believe the Alarmists

[AshevilleApp]

Maybe we should quit worrying about the causes and accept that overall the planet is getting warmer? That would allow us to focus more of our time and resources on dealing with the consequences.

[HI54UNI]

One of Warren I should pay more in taxes Buffet's subsidiaries announced today it would be building another 2000 MW of wind generation. That's another $181 million in taxpayer subsidies each year on top of the $313 million per year Berkshire already gets for existing wind.

[Grizalltheway]

Maybe we should quit worrying about the causes and accept that overall the planet is getting warmer? That would allow us to focus more of our time and resources on dealing with the consequences.

Well, it'll take care of dozens of coastal cesspools around world. Meanwhile, Montucky will be high and dry, and there's even talk parts of the state could eventually turn into prime vineyard country.

[Baldy]

Not really? You provide two links in an attempt to prove that my party is full of "deniers" who insist the climate isn't changing. Yet, your OWN link disproved your point pretty dramatically. Virtually NO ONE that they included in their so-called "denier" group is stating that the climate is "static". Almost to a person they all agree it's changing, and has always changed. The question is: how much impact has MAN had on the movement of the climate. And it's a valid question that those worshipping at the feet of the global warming alarmists have been virtually unable to answer without almost continually fudging results, using flawed data, or cherry picking data to meet a pre-conceived conclusion/expectation.

Additionally, virtually no one is saying or exhibiting an "utter lack of curiosity or interest in what is actually happening"....not sure where you get that. But questioning the flawed science doesn't make them "deniers". It doesn't even make them wrong.

It just makes YOU wrong. Again.

But I do agree about the profiteers. And that money flows both ways, my friend. Getting your snout into the trough of "global warming money" provided by our benevolent federal government is pretty strong incentive to be a "believer". And let's be honest: At the end of the day, the government has MUUUUUCH deeper pockets than the oil industry.

You're actually making my point for me...
So desperate and so anxious to show how thoughtful the paid stooges are
Tom they're just on the payroll and reading the script handed to them

Everybody's got to pick the most comfortable chair to sit in
the head space that suits your disposition

The deniers
(or as you're fond of pointing out)
more correctly the Oil Industry science report believers
vs.
The Alarmists
more correctly the agenda driving sucking at the government teat grant applicants
(which is anybody that believes moving carbon from the ground to the air isn't good camp)

I know it's important for you to be right about this because that's the Republican Stance on it
and it's my job as a Liberal to believe the Alarmists

accuracy.

Chizzy...it might be time for you to abandon this thread.

[Chizzang]

Maybe we should quit worrying about the causes and accept that overall the planet is getting warmer? That would allow us to focus more of our time and resources on dealing with the consequences.

Both things need to happen actually
We indeed need to focus on the eventual results of a warmer planet
everybody should agree with that

but we shouldn't stop trying to learn why its happening so fast
particularly if it's something we can eventually understand and even control ourselves

Imagine that..!!!

Preventing Herpes is better than treating the blisters

[AshevilleApp]

Maybe we should quit worrying about the causes and accept that overall the planet is getting warmer? That would allow us to focus more of our time and resources on dealing with the consequences.

Both things need to happen actually
We indeed need to focus on the eventual results of a warmer planet
everybody should agree with that

but we shouldn't stop trying to learn why its happening so fast
particularly if it's something we can eventually understand and even control ourselves

Imagine that..!!!

Preventing Herpes is better than treating the blisters

I agree. But at some point we need to move past the causal argument and start treating the symptoms.

I'm all for the transition to renewable energy, but that will take decades to accomplish at a mass scale.

[AZGrizFan]

Both things need to happen actually
We indeed need to focus on the eventual results of a warmer planet
everybody should agree with that

but we shouldn't stop trying to learn why its happening so fast
particularly if it's something we can eventually understand and even control ourselves

Imagine that..!!!

Preventing Herpes is better than treating the blisters

I agree. But at some point we need to move past the causal argument and start treating the symptoms.

Why? Why is it an either/or argument? Why can't we look for the cause AND treat the symptoms simultaneously?