Debate Topic: Environmentalism (Little Upsilon)

If you get over this apparent awe of letters after a name, and indicate that you are willing to think for yourself and not just blindly accept "consensus" opinion, I will declare victory and be satisfied.

I couldn't care less if you ever agree with me or not.

You know what a PhD in climatology will get you? The world's foremost expert on coastal upwelling off the coast of Peru or on the seasonal variability of the Somali currents. A PhD will make you an expert in a VERY specific subfield of the field you're studying, but not much better in the rest of the field. I can't tell you how many PhD candidates I've known who were experts in their specific niche, but you ask them a tangentially related question, and they're at a complete loss.

With a few hours of research time, I agree with FarmerBob that a simple H.S. diploma contains sufficient backgrounding in the math and sciences to understand the basics of climatology.

The thread is going into over load and we need to start a new one. It would be a shame to lose what we have written so I suggest we copy our posts from Sunday, March 29, 2009 - 10:16 pm and take it from there. We should do each one individualy inturn, as I've have copied a number of posts before and it does'nt make easy reading. IE, I copy mine then Ben copies his then miles copies his then I copy mine the Zde copies his ect ect.
What do you think?

Mmmmmmmmm. Thats long.
What to do?

GM. How long do you think we have got until this thread gets deleted due to it's length?

That wasn't my statement, Daelin. That came from a guy who designed nuclear weapons for a living and could do advanced calculus in his head.

Ever known someone who was "scary" smart?

The greatest threat to a free society is when free men shackle their own minds.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Thought takes man out of servitude, into freedom.

-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow <!-/Quote-!>

This debate reminds me kindergarten ..

Its not about understanding basics of climatology, its about having access to tons of informations, tons of data, studies, hypothesis, opinions, which then can be analyzed with the understanding of climatology.

I dont know, anyone here really thinks s/he educated enough to argue scientific consensus on global warming?

Raise your hand.

And if you are qualified, if you are educated enough, if you have sufficient data, if you have sound theory, present it, publish it and refute the consensus. How hard can it be eh?

And if not .. stfu or?

I dont get what the problem is. There is scientific consensus, anyone is free to believe in anything s/he likes, but why opinion opposing the consensus should be the right one I dont understand.

I'm sorry I put words into your mouth, FarmerBob. However, it is my belief. The information/studies/reports are easily gathered from journals at your local university. An "understanding of climatology" can be gathered with a either self-study or a few basic science courses.

As for educational requirements, of course I think I'm educated enough to argue scientific consensus. I have multiple degrees in the environmental sciences, so feel I am qualified both in evaluating the data presented AND evaluating the difficulty level of the material.

================================
You know what, if you have bullet-proof data, if you claim that humans have no influence over global warming, go to some climatologist conference or publish it in journals and force the general scientific consensus to admit they are wrong. That's how science works and science is open to change of mind if there is sufficient evidence.
================================

I'm sorry, but that's NOT how science works. Unfortunately, science has people, and people like their own ideas, prerogatives, and beliefs and are very resistant to change. That is how science works in the long term (50 - 100 years), but not in the short term .

Finally, as to my actual beliefs, I do believe that climate change is happening on our planet. Whether or not it's all directly due to man-made causes or not is still in dispute. Unfortunately, studies like that take a long time, and by necessity, can't be conclusively proven until after the fact. Regardless of cause, however, it certainly appears that climate change is taking place. Given that our species' activities and habitats only thrive within a relatively small band of temperatures/rainfall gradients, it seems to make prudent sense that even if the processes taking place on our planet are complete natural (unlikely though that is), we should be endeavoring to manipulate our climate to maintain it within our ideal band.

That's a great point, Daelin.

I agree with your take.

But here's the question.

Is global warming a good thing, forestalling what scientific consensus claimed just a short time ago was an impending ice age, or are we hastening towards one by not encouraging global cooling, ala the NA Current scenario?

Which leads directly to a second question.

Are we even capable of influencing global climate?

nothing like quoting oneself, but in kindergarten it seems necessary:

the only fair thing to say is that we are not 100% sure what is causing the changes we can observe. to claim humans do not influence anything is ignorant. - me, Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 10:16 am

and 3 weeks from this what do I get to read?

Education and intelligence are not the same thing. To be educated you need to possess knowledge. To be intelligent, you need to be able to infer from knowledge in a rational manner.

I posess the ability to infer and extrapolate information from available data. I am able to form opinions based upon facts presented to me. But I cannot speak for any of the rest of you.

But one does not need to be a specialist in any given area to hold opinion, or even debate. All one needs is to be able to explain and back up any given stance with observable facts and figures, as FarmerBob has done several times. As I myself have done also.

It is a fool who disregards information because they do not like somebody, rather than because they possess compelling data to the contrary.

It is the realm of the inately narrow-minded to attack a position simply because it isn't what the majority believes. And ultimately, it retards progress because it dismisses perfectly legitimate alternate views without reason or recourse. It becomes tantamount to a witch hunt, as we now see reguarly against anybody who disagrees with the majority.

But moving back to the environment and current scientific consensus; does a majority vote make it correct? I'm sorry, but I've heard this all before. The twentieth century and prior are littered with "scientific consencuses" of what will happen to the environment, only later to be found completely inaccurate.

The mid 20th century "ice age" predictions and the ozone threat, for example, both of which turned out to be naturally occuring phenomena.

The point regarding the current issue of Climate Change cum Man-Made Global Warming is that it simply isn't what the majority believes. Rather, its the opinion of the most vocal group - the politicians and the media. I'm not going to say that I believe the scientist in favour of man-made global warming are wrong, or even that they're all nothing more than political puppets. I'm simply not that naive. But what I will say is that the media loves a good disaster. Bad news sells.

As far as national governments go, the political ramifications - both domestically and internationally - of green policy are an excellent means by which to force certain controls and constraints upon both the individual and the state alike. Ultimately, I am fined for diagreeing with the government position.

I'm not claiming paranoia or anything. But there is no denying that there is far too much political investment within the issue of climate change. Politics and Science go about as well together as Religion and Science. Debate is most productive when left unbiased of all but theory and fact.

There are plenty of scientific experts, informed non-experts and generally learned individuals who are more than willing to form contrary opinions and debate them. There are plenty on both sides of this argument, legitimate and otherwise.

Personally, I would not limit myself to an opinion simply because it is the "in" thing to do. I would much rather take a look at the data on offer myself, review the opinion of the people who conducted the research into said data, apply what I know and what I can learn and reach the conclusion that seems the most logical. Then I would apply my conclusions and my sources in what I would hope to be an open-minded debate on the topic, with oppositional and supported riposte in return. As long as the opposition is equally well sourced, of course.

FarmerBob and I have both posted data from verious sources for the scrutiny, disection and delectation of all who choose to do so. Could somebody from the other side of the argument please post something other than personal opinion?

All arguments aside our science is inadequate to model or determine the state of non-linear systems with any degree of accuracy.

To use such flawed modeling techniques as demonstrated by the highly politicized scientists from the UN as the basis for spending trillions of dollars and destroying the economy of America is indeed foolish and wasteful.

I can see it now. Grandpa, why are there no birds and bee's anymore? Well kids, we did'nt want to risk the economy and go without. Anyway, who needs birds and bee's when we have toys and TV's?

Still waiting on those sources, Nix.

Im not sure if some realize it, but there is a world outside of the USA and there politics and science or politics and religion or science and politics don't mix the way some Americans seem to believe.

As there are countries which dont have problems accepting evolution, there are countries which dont have problems accepting global warming.

Its really not surprising to me that many of the global warming deniers come from the USA as its not surprising to me that many of the intelligent design supporters come from there.

That something is or looks like political issue where some live, does not mean its political issue everywhere in the world.

It makes my head spin when some call for facts one sentence and in following they dismiss science just because it does not fit their argument.

fucking useless rhetorical exercises and i really fucking hope i will get banned from the board because this shit is just .. too fucking much for me to handle.

trick is to pretend everyone else in the game doesn't exist and just play for you. :3

and then just come chat in irc for funs.

dun worry lah.

You're all a figment of dull, repetitive imagination! La la la la... Oh! Look! Drugs! And just look at! More drugs! La la la...

Well its just incredible how some argue here.

They perhaps believe that if they have better command of the English language or that they paste some data they didnt gather themselves but copied them from some site or book that they are right.

When Daelin, who claims to be educated and qualified on the subject, comes and gives her/his opinion they say .. I agree with your take.. and then just follow in their argument as if nothing happened disregarding what he said completely.

We have data we have data!

Theres fucking twice as many data contradicting your data so fucking what? Stick your fucking data to your ass. What do you think they prove? Nothing, nada, niente, nichts, nic.

Not even talking about interpretation of THE data.

Get over it and if you are unable to admit that you could be wrong, that there are other possibilities, then what the fuck is wrong with you? Are we talking about the Bible or something that its not possible to admit other possibilities?

Im starting to doubt some people here are serious and I suspect they do it just to make a controversy, just to troll, because if they are adult, intelligent, educated and serious then I dunno what the fuck is going on here.

For the record, I'm not American.

As for data; it proves a knowledge base for your conclusions. If there's so much out there, you shouldn't have an issue supporting other claims now, should you?

This isn't about whether choosing one side or the other. This is about supporting conclusions. But its nice to see you're so easy to agitate.

I can provide you with tons of data Miles. How big problem do you think it is to google some report, supporting the claim that global warming is for 90% certainty caused by humans, and paste the data here? But I wont do it because I know it does not prove anything. I could even make them up and say they are from a book or study in my language and do you think you would know the difference? Please ..

But its nice to see you're so easy to agitate. - Miles Prower

I had a bad day I guess and Im glad I could amuse you but cmon guys, why is so hard to say ..

I do not know or I am not sure?

It would provide an insight into the nature of your reasoning. But I'm not talking about copying and pasting. The whole point of this is that if you're going to hold an opinion and say "Global warming is man made." and so forth as Nix has done then you need to be able to back it up with something more substantial than personal belief - ideally empirical evidence...

When you write a factual book, for example, you write out a bibliography of each and every reference you use to gather information on your chosen topic so that people can see clearly how and why your conclusions are as they are. Your actual opinion could be "Proof that WW2 was a ploy to sell more popcorn from later movie rights" for all I care, as long as you back it up with some references which show a factual basis.

It is simple debate practice.

I'm not saying that I know for sure what will happen in the future. All I've done is stated what I think, why I think it and some of the information and sources used to reach that point.

Surely you've written a paper or two in your life on some subject or other? Any scientific claim, regardless of ultimate certainty, should be backed up with some form of empirical evidence. Otherwise it is little more than opinion.

I am not holding that opinion as I stated 3 weeks ago in one of my first, if not first, posts in this environmental "debate", however, if I see someone holding the opposite opinion, then I am left with nothing else but to point out that its not true or its not a fact that humans do not contribute to global warming.

As I have said before, I've done my research and formed my opinion when I became aware of the issue few years back and since my interest in environmental issues is not professional nor even as a hobby, I don't follow reports coming out. To me its enough to watch out for any major shifts on the issue, and I have to say I get to see more evidence supporting the man-made global warming than disproving it.

Even if I would not do any research and went with the .. scientific consensus .. so what? We all do it on daily basis, we put our faith in science simply because its not possible to verify everything by ourselves. It would not prove me wrong.

I do not have problem with Dealin's or Ben's statements simply because they admit to a doubt.


But since you insist, since it seems it would make you happy:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

argue this.

This is, for example, what I base my opinion on. It has citations, it has data, it has references, you name it.

And what you gonna tell me now? Its a scam, this source of information is not reliable, its not true.

What can I say to that?

Not at all, Zdeněk. This is exactly what I was after.

Thank you.

I can't access the link so I was wondering Miles whats in it that made you no longer want to argue?

It wasn't the content.

The terms of my argument were that I desired somebody from the opposing side to offer sources. That requirement was satisfied, so I know that his opinion is based upon the facts as he sees them rather than unfounded opinion.

So my debate with him has reached the desired conclusion, at least from my side.

Any chance of you doing the same, Nix?