Climate change falsehood

well as I said you wont get "proof" out of science
thats just not generally what theories are all about
proof is occasionally found in laboratory recreatable evidence derived from direct experimentation

if you go to the other climate thread you can read the debate for yourself and draw your own conclusions
from what Ive seen the weight of evidence is substantially on the side of warming being a direct result of the rapid release of co2 from fossil fuels
as was predicted 50 or so years ago

the isotopic signature of the co2 clearly indicates were it came form and abut 27% I think might be a tad less maybe 23 or 24 being directly attributable to fossil fuels

the local weather patterns are difficult to predict to say the least
but the averages and deviations from average are not so hard to predict on a global scale based on a few fairly well understood parameters

if you look for the 600,000 year graph of temp and carbon I posted several times on the climate thread you will see that there is a direct correlation between the two with a significant deviation in recent times
also I would point out that we should have been entering a cooling period but instead have hovered uncharacteristically at the high even though the solar maxim was well on the decline and is now at a near record low. while at the same time co2 forced science to rewrite the chart in order to fit its present location in with the rest of the data
basically off the charts higher than its ever been in the last 600,000 years
about as close to proof as your going to get

so the why is not so hard to answer
lacking any coherent competing theories
the only thing that could be causing it is co2

 

Gonzo,

I'm still a little unclear what offended you in my post, but I apologise anyway. The standards of debates I'm used to hereabouts are pretty robust. Perhaps I should moderate a bit for international forums.

I'll try to condense what I apparently failed to say, without the murder simile you objected to:

From a moral perspective it is different because we caused it.

From a pragmatic perspective (much more important!) it is different because having caused it, we can fix it without messing around with things we don't understand fully, and because we caused it we can know that it was not a normal part of some ecosystems long term cycles.

Feel free to take issue with any of this, but please be specific, and give reasons!

If you just don't give a rats' what I think, then that's fine too, but say so clearly so I can stop trying to offer my perspective on your question

On a more general note, I actually agree with you that some of what the greenies say on the issue is exaggerated and emotive, but that is hardly surprising since many of them have been struggling to make an apparently indifferent world listen about a potentially huge issue for decades. Opinion from either side doesn't alter the facts.

 

Don't worry guys, we are going to run out of oil faster than any of the reduction targets being set, its a non argument!

 

We are apex predators in the unique position of having our population dynamics decoupled from the resources we use.

We can at a whim or from some culinary foible totally decimate another species or resource without consequence. We enjoy such a broad latitude of actions due to the unprecedented technologies we are able to employ in the pursuit of our maintenance in the natural world. We possess a totally unique ability among species to both create a ecological niche in virtually any known environment, and to DECIDE how we must act to maintain this niche to insure our survival.

We won- the planet is at this time our garden. We may nurture or destroy it- our choice.

I believe I would counter your argument by saying "our nature" is one of using the ability to choose.

I believe you suggest that "...following our nature just as all other species are..", is to sit in the drivers seat and not steer... . This is quite contrary to our nature as I see it.

 

go Zed lets hope so
thing is I would have said food was what we run out of first
there are always alternative sources for fuel but food
can you say Soylent Green

 

"what a sorry example of an American" - Now, I know I'm doing my job! You're brain, consisting of a muffin and a loose aluminum wire, can't stay with me, Mas. Your'e better off not posting so I don't continue to rip you.
"And what does it have to do with climate change?" - And what do you have to do with anything?
"the whole theory basically states that the induced change is sufficiently rapid as to deny species the possibility of adapting quickly enough to survive" - I concur that if it happens too fast, it is going to be painful but I plan on survival.
Question: Would climate change as we see it happening bring the world into "Third" as fast as Chamberlin style socialism (as practiced by Bush and Obama)? Would climate change bring the world into "third" as fast as pacifism as demonstrated by Obama regularizing relations with Chavez, Ortega, Jong Il, Moumoud Baby, and any other two-bit socialist dictator he can find?
Now, combine socialism, pacifism and demilitarization and see how we do against the jihadists, et.al.. Everyone here is too young to remember WWll and I'm apparently amongst the rare few that read.

 

Don't applaud to loudly Its not going to be a picnic getting over our oil addiction. Can we do it with out WWIII? Anyway my point is we need to focus on the solution ---> better energy sources. The longer keep arguing over the other stuff the more distracted we become from what is a more immediate issue --> believe it or not.

Soylent Green --> YUM!

What is it 10 cals of oil in one of food, yikes we gotta stop breeding!

 

Mark your at it again
give Mas a break

I used to drink to many and start answering posts untill I found myself being an *** several times, so I keep the drunken posts to a minimum these days

If mas has got some technical flaw in his post
have at him
but try and leave the personal attacks out of it
there only going to get you in trouble

your right about one thing though
bad time to be any of the following
pacifist socialism and demilitarization
as resources get slimmer
there are bound to be fights breaking out over what little is left
that Alaskan fishery
I hope they call out the armed forces of the entire country to defend it when and if the crunch hits
that one fishery
if things go the wrong way
may end up reseeding the system for us eventually
assuming it can be managed properly

I agree that the Muslim agenda appears to be an armed conflict with any religion not there own
Im not positive but Ive heard it said that islamic countries are in conflict with every bordering nation and a few that are not bordering there territories
this is not representative of a people interested in peaceful coexistence
nor can it entirely be blamed on the deceitful nature of American foreign or internal policy

 

yup I think it is 10 to 1
not even remotely sustainable
thats why I stated in another thread that this biz of shipping food round the world a few times before placing it on the supermarket shelf a mile or two from where it grew is just crazy
paper wrappings made from grass fibers instead of mulched trees
instead of plastics
lots we can do to replace oil but its the wasteful practices that need to go as well
the us dep of agriculture claims that each American eats or wastes 4.7 lb of food a day

 

"...well as I said you wont get "proof" out of science thats just not generally what theories are all about proof is occasionally found in laboratory recreatable evidence derived from direct experimentation.."

Proof = process of testing something whether it is true or a fact/a way of providing that a statement is true or that which has been calculated is correct.

Theory= a set of ideas that is intended to explain why something happens or exists.

So a fact is past tense (it already exits just needs to be found) and a theory (a bunch of ideas) is ostensibly, in this case, future tense, a prediction.

So how can something in the future be a fact?..since a proof is evidence of the here and now or was, not, what will be. What will be, is a theory.

Just questioning your logic.

 

no worries
I liked that one makes folks think a little
basically one of the primary tenants of any good theory is that it is able to predict something
anything

thats why I am constantly mentioning that fifty or so years ago predictions were made using the theory of rapid climate change about the extent and the areas of greatest change
those predictions have come true

deniers recognising that the predictions were made and found to be accurate have countered by distorting the predictions and claiming the distorted predictions have not been found
ie
the tropical troposphere crap they always try to foist off as a prediction of rapid climate change
were the change was actually predicted to occur fastest was in the arctic at a rate of about 4 times I think it was that of the average increase

the decietful nature of industries attempts to confuse the issue with public relations spin geared to stall meaningful change is exactly the same as the tobacco industries attempts to stall alterations in there industry as well and whats really interesting is
they hired the same pr people and used the same turn key scientists to write there agnotism

 

if you really want to take it a step farther look at the big bang theory
it has accurately predicted nothing
ever
got the background radiation wrong by a mile with about a dozen other theories being able to accurately predict it

so here you have a theory that has far from passed the tests of a good theory and most folks buy it

on the other hand you have a theory like climate change and it makes excellent predictions and 97% of scientists buy it
but the public campain by industry has been able to sow enough dougt in the population that only about 65% of the american population believe in it

crazy eh

whats funny is every time I hear that tropical troposphere **** I ask were the theory predicted that and who's paper did that appear in
I never get a response and most of the time that line of argument gets exchanged for another
usually equally bad argument

 

Very intelligent arguing. My compliments.

 

...... While .....:

1 000 000 000 (or so) people wake up every morning, not knowing if they can fill half a cup with rice/ food during the day.....

And for balance (as some tend to be a bit touchy here ); Americans are NOT the only ones wasting food.

Here in Norway, we like to think of fish as fresh food.....
At the local shop I bought some filets (frozen), at home I reead on the package, and started wondering.... That fish ended its marine life up north from here (yeah outside the coast of Norway), it was frozen, shipped to ...CHINA....? (beat that for a travel) thawed, fileted, bone picked (or what you name the process), marinized, refrosen and sent back to Norway....
(tasted pretty ok, though...)

Once around the world, or close to, at least....

Not that I don't think its ok for people in China to have a job, but magnitude of the transport involved here....

 

"...so here you have a theory that has far from passed the tests of a good theory and most folks buy it.."

This is the same argument taken by religious people to say god does exist because you can't prove otherwise.

This, in scientific terms is just "gap filling". Scientist (all of them) are ignorant. They have ignorance of their own subject matter, since it an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit this ignorance, as a challenge to future conquests and vital to good science.

If scientist A fails to provide an comprehensive answer or theory (that works in their eyes)the "activist" draws an immediate default conclusion; you can't prove it, ergo you're wrong.

Gaps are just lack of information..the more information one has the closer to the answer one gets.

"...on the other hand you have a theory like climate change and it makes excellent predictions and 97% of scientists buy it ..."

As i said earlier...scientist can't even predict the weather accurately beyond 5~7 days....how on earth can they predict 20~50 into the future on climate change.