global warming

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

daverupa wrote:
Dan74 wrote:the foremost scientists in the world
Well, foremost climate scientists; but yes, to lump their conclusions together as 'opinion' is a bewildering whitewash.
I borrowed the word "opinion" from the source you cited. All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic. Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.
Now tell me, have you ever heard or read of any statistical study by a real scientist suggesting that a data sample of this minuscule size ought be used as the basis for accurately predicting the probability of future results or events? NO. Of course not. It would be and is preposterous, laughable really. Yet the U.N. and countless countries around the world are budgeting trillions of dollars (US) and considering bankrupting themselves and their citizenry on the basis of such statistical lunacy.
Global Warm Up for Totalitarianism
Last edited by danieLion on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

chris98e wrote:
polarbuddha101 wrote:Yeah we're coming out of an ice age and into the heat age
Look at the graphs, current temperature is almost near bottom.

See

Image


The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years,
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/ ... q-6.2.html

Check how high C02 levels have been in the past 500 million years. We are actually at the near bottom of CO2 and temperature levels.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

Dan74 wrote:As for Global Warming, it is quite astounding to me that Daniel, for example, thinks that the foremost scientists in the world are unaware of basic rule of reasoning, but there you go...
Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

danieLion wrote:Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.
I'm sorry, but these "fallacies" are not quite as "glaring" as you seem to believe.

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful. I'm looking through your posts and while I see many points, many of them reasonable, I can't quite gather them into one coherent statement that warrants a response.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
danieLion wrote:Why so dismmissive? You (or anyone in this thread except Alex) haven't addressed even one of the glaring fallacies I've pointed out from climate change "science." And in your dismissiveness you've gone and commited yet another informal fallacy: tu quoque ("you too"). If you're going to presume the validity of the false dichotomy of facts v. opinions, you're probably going to continue to be dismissive, cling to your prejudices and refuse to investigate how climate change "science" fails to hold up under the srutiny of basic logic and scientific reasoning.
I'm sorry, but these "fallacies" are not quite as "glaring" as you seem to believe.

If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful. I'm looking through your posts and while I see many points, many of them reasonable, I can't quite gather them into one coherent statement that warrants a response.
See above post. Maybe you can't make them coherent because they contradict your prejudice.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:If you would kindly post a short summation of what you think is "wrong" with climate science, I'd be grateful.
-Some assume that climate has to be what is best for humans and current life-forms forgetting that climate was changing for 4.5 billion years and it doesn't care for humans, animals or other life forms.

-compare current temperature to some of the coldest temperatures (a rarity!!!) and when it is obviously higher, they scream "doom!!!!".

Within past 600 million years there have been only 2 times when temperature was as low as today. For hundreds of millions of years, the temperature was much higher.

If we were to compare temperature of today with more USUAL temperature for earth, we are actually still in downward trend and closer to ice age. Cold weather of today is the extreme event.

- Making predictions from few chosen decades, rather than few MILLION years. It is like guessing an outcome of the football game by first split second of action.
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: global warming

Post by Cittasanto »

Here is a playlist of videos about climate change starting at #6 about the hacked e-mails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2f ... PfAIyI7VAP
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
chris98e
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:52 am

Re: global warming

Post by chris98e »

Alex123 wrote: Look at the graphs, current temperature is almost near bottom.
I don't understand that graph. But if its against global warming then the scientists were probably the same kind of scientists that were under the Bush administration.
:?
I'm not trying get you people to copy and paste a whole bunch of stuff for or against global warming we can do that until the cows come home. I'm just saying is your whether drastically changed from when you were a kid like the whether in philly pa where I live.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

chris98e wrote:I don't understand that graph.

The chart shows that for 100s of millions years, the global temperature was MUCH higher than today. So when it comes to more usual, today's temperature is clearly extreme. It is unusually low.

There have been times when C02 was almost 7,000ppm, and for 100s of millions of years C02 levels were above 1,000ppm, while today, C02 is at 396.80.... Wow, another C02 extreme. It is unusually low.
chris98e wrote: I'm just saying is your whether drastically changed from when you were a kid like the whether in philly pa where I live.
Weather changes every day. Considering how uncharacteristically cold the current temperatures are, it would be strange if they didn't back off. I hope we don't get into another ice age which could be a catastrophe for us. But I think that AGW proponents will say that global cooling is due to global warming... :(
The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history. -Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ehrlich (1971)
A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:
-Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.
The American Institute of Physics – the organization mentioned in the Boston Globe article – notes:
For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight.
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

I apologize, I didn't see this post Daniel.
danieLion wrote:All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.
You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science. Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism and then complaining that a scientific process doesn't have enough data is as intellectually dishonest as the libertarian who calls the fire department when his house goes up in flames.
Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.
Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.
Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"

The fact is, the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown scientifically to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that greenhouse cycles, atmospheric dimming, particulate accumulation, and deforestation are undeniably capable of causing global warming. We also know that global warming is occurring, and that this new round of warming began to manifest around the time that our activities began generating these conditions. Your recourse to statistics is fatally misguided; arguing that we can't know the reality of AGW because our sample size doesn't represent the entire course of the planet's climate is like arguing that Nate Silver can't predict the outcome of an election without considering the voting records of the Whigs in early 1800. We are worried about present conditions and their ability to bring about artificially distorted near-future events. We are using the last century to predict the next century, based on the influence of conditions that we know to be detrimental to a healthy planet.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:The fact is, the planet is warming,
Compared to unusually cold period called "ice age", yes. But not compared to more usual temperatures.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Post by daverupa »

danieLion wrote:All science is opinion.
I'm surprised at your disingenuous approach. Personal opinion and scientific opinion are very different animals, as I expect you know:
wiki wrote:A "scientific opinion" is the general opinion of a professional scientific body gained through extensive research with a reproducible, unbiased conclusion soundly based upon the facts derived from the experiment. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.
Anyway, you appear to be up on your logical fallacies, so I'm surprised you didn't notice yourself committing this false equivalence fallacy.

(Glaring fallacies abound, it would seem, except I have provided a direct quote to help with the glare. Your earlier list of fallacies, by way of contrast, criticizes only your own straw men and not any cited findings of climate science.)

So, as I predicted, this thread is going to end up predictably. I shall strive to renounce it.

:candle:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I apologize, I didn't see this post Daniel.
danieLion wrote:All science is opinion. Presuming that everyone in the discussion believes in the validity of fact v. value or fact v. opinion false dicthotomies further obsfucates an all ready overly emotionlly charged topic.
You're free to believe that all science is opinion and that all facts are opinions, but then you also forfeit your right to claim any authority in determining what is or isn't appropriate science. Taking the stance of epistemological anarchism and then complaining that a scientific process doesn't have enough data is as intellectually dishonest as the libertarian who calls the fire department when his house goes up in flames.
Science does not seek conclusions. Science is about demonstrating which opinions are the currenty the best opinions with the available information. In the case of climate change "science" there is almost no information.
Science is about making pragmatic predictions based on theories that demonstrate explanatory power in regards to the available data. The theory of anthropogenic climate change does this, and does it well.

Humans have been on the scene approximately 10,000 years. The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years young. 10,000/4.5 billion equals 0.00000222222 which equals not enough information.

But it's worse that that. We've only have discrete statistical clilmatology measurements (not inferences) for about the last 150 years. 150/4.5 billion equals 0.000000033.
Let's say a sinkhole opens up under my house tomorrow. Would the correct response be, "There's not enough data to show whether or not this sinkhole is going to continue expanding. Why, it only appeared this morning and the rock below me is over three billion years old!" No, the correct response would be, "Holy shit a sinkhole run!"

The fact is, the planet is warming, and we know for a fact that human beings are doing things that can be shown scientifically to create conditions that accelerate that warming. We know that greenhouse cycles, atmospheric dimming, particulate accumulation, and deforestation are undeniably capable of causing global warming. We also know that global warming is occurring, and that this new round of warming began to manifest around the time that our activities began generating these conditions. Your recourse to statistics is fatally misguided; arguing that we can't know the reality of AGW because our sample size doesn't represent the entire course of the planet's climate is like arguing that Nate Silver can't predict the outcome of an election without considering the voting records of the Whigs in early 1800. We are worried about present conditions and their ability to bring about artificially distorted near-future events. We are using the last century to predict the next century, based on the influence of conditions that we know to be detrimental to a healthy planet.
:goodpost:
:toast:
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: global warming

Post by Polar Bear »

So what's more important, stopping deforestation and planting new trees or somehow banishing SUVs from this earth and taxing companies extra for their carbon emissions? (not that they're mutually exclusive, just wondering what people think is more important, protecting the biosphere through conservation or reforming human use of resources)

Maybe I'll make this a new topic and anyone else is of course free to start it as well. That might actually be constructive
Last edited by Polar Bear on Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara »

daverupa wrote:So, as I predicted, this thread is going to end up predictably.
:juggling:
Is that a case of validation of a scientific theory or mere confirmation bias in operation? :tongue:
daverupa wrote:I shall strive to renounce it.
:candle:
Aw, don't go away, Dave ... it's nice to have another voice speaking for reason.

:coffee:
Kim
Locked