Jump to content



Photo

Question for Global Warming theorists...


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 24,789 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:45 PM

"I believe" there are cycles which we know almost nothing about.
"I believe" they are part and parcel of the universe's existance.
"I believe" we could be in a natural warming cycle since even the ice on Mars is melting.
"I believe" that one volcanic eruption produces more "pollution" than years of man made pollution.

"I believe" that scientists are people who can have motives.

They also need funding and any potential global "crisis" is very profitable.
Bird flu.
Asian flu.
Mad cow.
Global warming.
40 years ago it was the coming ice age and the "scientific community" was considering covering the poles with black soot to warm things up a bit.

Most climate scientists receive their funding either directly or indirectly through federal government grants (e.g. through NASA). To increase funding it helps to have the political class anxious to use their findings as a political club. Climatologists are unusually vulnerable to the temptation to exaggerate to keep the money flowing.




#22 Entropy3.0

Entropy3.0

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,207 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:15 PM

I think global warming is 'anti-science'
Michael Crichton makes the case here:

http://www.crichton-...es_quote04.html


Here are come quotes:
re Lomborg: "The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful."

"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horsesh*t? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? "

Mark, this will be my last post on this thread. Thanks for the debate, I learned a lot.

Mike


Mike,

I read the article, and as said it largely a rejection of science and consensus democracy, which is of course your right in that system!

I'll stick to the broader point, which is if you reject science and democracy as you and Michael are, what is your alternative system for making decisions?

The argument for rejection here essentially is 1 point -

1. Prediction is impossible - so we shouldn't worry about global warming.


Saying 'but we can't predict it' is missing the point. Its taking an untenable position of 'infallibility', that is, that Global warming absolutely cannot happen, you cannot be wrong on that.

If you accept global warming could happen, which since if you can't predict you must accept, then you want to think about an Insurance policy against that possiblity.

I went over that in detail in the insurance post above. People take out insurance precisely because we can't predict. We don't know if a freak flood will occur, but the costs would be too high so we hedge our risk.

So I've repeated this over and over, but never am getting an answer.
==>Why when global warming presents such massive potential for risk, would you not want to take out insurance?

It really is swaggering arrogance of people to dismiss every scientific body on the planet and declare 'well, I know better, and they've been wrong before so I'm going to put the risk of global warming at Zero, and we don't need any insurance policy because I cannot be wrong on that'.

Do you accept you can be wrong, that Global warming could happen? -

If not, if prediction is so hard, why are you so absolutely certain you aren't wrong?

If you do accept you can be wrong, why don't you want some insurance against the risks of it?

For this reason, I still don't see any logic to the 'do nothing position' and hope folks don't walk away and can help me understand.



Mark.

Edited by entropy, 24 August 2006 - 08:16 PM.

Pick a system, follow the system, ignore everything else.

#23 Entropy3.0

Entropy3.0

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,207 posts

Posted 24 August 2006 - 08:27 PM

"I believe" there are cycles which we know almost nothing about.
"I believe" they are part and parcel of the universe's existance.
"I believe" we could be in a natural warming cycle since even the ice on Mars is melting.
"I believe" that one volcanic eruption produces more "pollution" than years of man made pollution.

"I believe" that scientists are people who can have motives.

They also need funding and any potential global "crisis" is very profitable.
Bird flu.
Asian flu.
Mad cow.
Global warming.
40 years ago it was the coming ice age and the "scientific community" was considering covering the poles with black soot to warm things up a bit.

Most climate scientists receive their funding either directly or indirectly through federal government grants (e.g. through NASA). To increase funding it helps to have the political class anxious to use their findings as a political club. Climatologists are unusually vulnerable to the temptation to exaggerate to keep the money flowing.





All true and points I agree with, but totally irrelevant to what action Govt should be taking as I explained above, because Govt is required to act on what its appointed scientific bodies think. Otherwise it says 'Govt doesn't trust science', and we are back in the dark ages. This has already led to schools being forced to teach ID or not teach evolution, and it amounts to going back to the dark ages if allowed to stand unchallenged.



I really don't think its possible to make this point any clearer. I would simply ask you consider how the world opeated in the dark ages before 'science', and ask what system do you propose instead of the current one? who and how are we going to make decisions if Govt is rejecting the current system? are we going to use perosnal faith? soothsayers and mystics?



Mark.
Pick a system, follow the system, ignore everything else.

#24 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 12:11 AM

Mark,
At some poiint the debate ends and we agree to disagree. All I can do is repeat what I've said,
because I can't explain it any better.


Your post and my response:


I read the article, and as said it largely a rejection of science and consensus democracy, which is of course your right in that system!

*** correct

I'll stick to the broader point, which is if you reject science and democracy as you and Michael are, what is your alternative system for making decisions?

******* Congress should make the decisions and they already have. See my previous post above.


The argument for rejection here essentially is 1 point -

1. Prediction is impossible - so we shouldn't worry about global warming.

*** Correct. Predicting 100 years in the future is impossible. See Crichton post above.

Saying 'but we can't predict it' is missing the point. Its taking an untenable position of 'infallibility', that is, that Global warming absolutely cannot happen, you cannot be wrong on that.

**** I could certainly be wrong. Lots of smart people on the other side.

If you accept global warming could happen, which since if you can't predict you must accept, then you want to think about an Insurance policy against that possiblity.

I went over that in detail in the insurance post above. People take out insurance precisely because we can't predict. We don't know if a freak flood will occur, but the costs would be too high so we hedge our risk.

So I've repeated this over and over, but never am getting an answer.
==>Why when global warming presents such massive potential for risk, would you not want to take out insurance?

**** Cost/benefit is poor . Better ways to spend money. See Lomborg post above.
I don't insure myself against being hit by lightning, but it could happen. Cost/benefit is poor.


It really is swaggering arrogance of people to dismiss every scientific body on the planet and declare 'well, I know better, and they've been wrong before so I'm going to put the risk of global warming at Zero, and we don't need any insurance policy because I cannot be wrong on that'.

**** I could be wrong. So could you. I agree with MIT professor Lindzen.
http://en.wikipedia....Richard_Lindzen

Do you accept you can be wrong, that Global warming could happen? -

*** yes

If not, if prediction is so hard, why are you so absolutely certain you aren't wrong?

**** I could be wrong, so could you. Of course I never said I was absolutely certain.

If you do accept you can be wrong, why don't you want some insurance against the risks of it?

**** Cost/benefit is poor . Better ways to spend money. See Lomborg post above.
I don't insure myself against being hit by lightning, but it could happen. Cost/benefit is poor.


For this reason, I still don't see any logic to the 'do nothing position' and hope folks don't walk away and can help me understand.



Mark.
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#25 OEXCHAOS

OEXCHAOS

    Mark S. Young

  • Admin
  • 20,188 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 04:53 PM

I'm going to throw my thinking in on this. Global warming is a POSSIBILITY. Pollution from fossil fuels is an unavoidable reality. Dependance upon either unreliable and immoral regimes or upon depleting and dirty domestic resources is reality. So, we have some reason to take steps that will lessen "green house gasses" regardless. The real question is, how much, how fast and at what cost. What we do know is that it will be very hard to cut emissions drastically enough to make much of a difference in the eventual outcome near term. In fact, we know that if we take to drastic and draconian actions, we'll kill growth, which will, in all likelihood, decrease our ability to find additional solutions. So, what do we do? My read is that we should be seeking way to decrease dependance on and use of fossil fuels with a minimum of negative economic impact. To the degree that such efforts are anti growth, governments should take additional pro growth steps, by cutting spending on things that don't make sense (e.g. the "war on drugs") and cutting taxes. At a minium, tax incentives should be created to promote the conversion to renewable power resources. There's a ton of wind, water, and solar power that can be generated at prices that aren't too much off current on a net-net basis. It's just that there's not enough incentive currently. As we can see by Tesla, some amazing technologies come on line when the price of fuel gets high enough. More will, but it'll happen more quickly if there's incentive to transition. Mark

Mark S Young
Wall Street Sentiment
Get a free trial here:
http://wallstreetsen...t.com/trial.htm
You can now follow me on twitter


#26 Entropy3.0

Entropy3.0

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,207 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 05:09 PM

Mark,
At some poiint the debate ends and we agree to disagree. All I can do is repeat what I've said, because I can't explain it any better.


I think there is a long way to go in this debate yet, see my reply below.

I read the article, and as said it largely a rejection of science and consensus democracy, which is of course your right in that system!

** correct


But yet you want ot debate scientific issue's such as global warming. Hmm.

I'll stick to the broader point, which is if you reject science and democracy as you and Michael are, what is your alternative system for making decisions?

******* Congress should make the decisions and they already have. See my previous post above.


We need to get into this deeply, I think this is where we vastly disagree.

Firstly, you reject the idea of consensus being right, but then suggest a system of consensus to make decisions which is clearly illogical. Congress is elected by consensus ( democratic poll), and comes to decison by consensus i.e. a amjoirty vote.

So how is consensus now a good system, when you and the skeptics maintain 'consensus is always wrong' ??

Second, on what basis are congressman going to vote?

If they vote against their own scientific bodies such as the National Acadamy of sciences, it begs many a question -

1. Why is congress using our tax money to pay for a scientic institute who's conclusions it can choose to deem 'not good science'.

2. That logically implies the congressman are superior in their scientitic knowledge to the institute scientists, which beg the question why they arent members of the scientific institutes who's science they are dismissing?

3. Having examined the backgrounds of congressman, the majority do not have sicneitifc educations, so how did they aquire this superior science knowledge to feel qualified to reject what the body of science is saying?


Or is there some non-scientific means by which the decisions are going to be made?

If so, you need to explain that in alot of detail, so it can be widely scrutinzed to the extent that scientific thinking has been for 200+ years, where it appears to have worked rather well compated to the non-scientific dark age before it.

The argument for rejection here essentially is 1 point -
1. Prediction is impossible - so we shouldn't worry about global warming.

*** Correct. Predicting 100 years in the future is impossible. See Crichton post above.


Why are you predicting 100 years into the future? Global warming according to science is observable now. I realize you reject science, so this is hard to discuss.

Also predcting 100 years in clealy not impossible, for example projections of birth rates, diseases progrression etc are very accurate over long term timeframes.

Last time I checked, seasons are very predictable as well, had i predicted the rough season in 1500 for the year 2000, I would have been accurate enough.


But since you reject science, how do you determine that predicting 100 years is 'impossible'. Are you using a statistical measure? surely not, because statistics is part of science, as is definitely consensus if ever there was!


What superior knowledge of Science do you posses about prediction, that the scientific community does not?


Or is it they are in a vast conspiracy to lie and pretend they can predict ? that would be remarkable, because many scientists who signed off on peer review are conservatives, and from all over the world, that would be some coordination to get scientists in Russia, China, all of Europe, Australia and everywhere is all be in on it.

What evidence do you have of this conspiracy ?

Saying 'but we can't predict it' is missing the point. Its taking an untenable position of 'infallibility', that is, that Global warming absolutely cannot happen, you cannot be wrong on that.

**** I could certainly be wrong. Lots of smart people on the other side.


OK...Global warming could be happening.


If you accept global warming could happen, which since if you can't predict you must accept, then you want to think about an Insurance policy against that possiblity.

I went over that in detail in the insurance post above. People take out insurance precisely because we can't predict. We don't know if a freak flood will occur, but the costs would be too high so we hedge our risk.

So I've repeated this over and over, but never am getting an answer.
==>Why when global warming presents such massive potential for risk, would you not want to take out insurance?


**** Cost/benefit is poor . Better ways to spend money. See Lomborg post above.
I don't insure myself against being hit by lightning, but it could happen. Cost/benefit is poor.



SO Prediction is impossible, but Lomborg has made the predictions on which to base this cost/benefit - that's logical you think?

So you reject science, but Lomborg has the 'right science', and the scientific community in its vast conspiracy is just rejecting it.


You just admitted you could be wrong, and my point was what if yor wrong an the cost are much higher that Lomborg predicts.



It really is swaggering arrogance of people to dismiss every scientific body on the planet and declare 'well, I know better, and they've been wrong before so I'm going to put the risk of global warming at Zero, and we don't need any insurance policy because I cannot be wrong on that'.

**** I could be wrong. So could you. I agree with MIT professor Lindzen.
http://en.wikipedia....Richard_Lindzen



Science clearly accepts in can be wrong, by only asigned probabilties to event, but I'm glad you recognize the Skeptics are fallable.



Do you accept you can be wrong, that Global warming could happen? -

*** yes

If not, if prediction is so hard, why are you so absolutely certain you aren't wrong?

**** I could be wrong, so could you. Of course I never said I was absolutely certain.

If you do accept you can be wrong, why don't you want some insurance against the risks of it?

**** Cost/benefit is poor . Better ways to spend money. See Lomborg post above.
I don't insure myself against being hit by lightning, but it could happen. Cost/benefit is poor.


I answer the cost benefit fallacy above, its based on prediction, which you claim is impossible.


As regards lightening, the odds are millions to one against being hit.

Lets ask, what are the odds the world scientists are wrong on global warming?

Well, how often do they ever reach a consensus on anything. Very rarely, it takes decades of arguemnt, just like it has.

How many times once they've reached consensus, are they wrong versus right?

I could list almost infinite numbers of unchanged consensus. Gravity. Check. Moon around earth. Check. Sun in Sky. check.

I could list very few example of being utterly wrong in the last 100 years which is when moderrn scientific method with peer review came into being. Feel free to list some examples.


I'm certain it is in the order of 50% right, but I've said all along lets say 1% right.


Are you saying you wouldn't take out insurance for a 1 in 100 chance of being hit by lightening.

I am not trying to be harsh here, but as a trained scientists the arguments need to be shown for what they are, completely incoherant and contradictory.


The bottom line is for 100+ years governments have asked scientific bodies to give them answers on scientific questions. During the whole 90's the Skeptics constantly pointed out the lack of scientific consensus as reason govt' shouldn't act. Now, one of the rare time the world scientist agree, the skeptics lose the scientific debate and suddenly decide 'oh you can't trust science, its a vast conspiracy'. I believe that's called hypocracy, and they compund that by then trying to quote other scientist like Lomborg as reasoning, sheesh, you can't have it both ways...either you reject science or you don't.



Why all of a sudden should govt' decide 'no, were not going to go with the scientists on this one, lets decide it ourselves'. Liek I aid, based on what qualifications to judge the science better than the scienitfic community? How irresponsible is that! It wuold be unprecendented..



No scientist is saying science is perfect. It could turn out this is one case where it gets it wrong. But no system is perfect, and we don't have as yet suggestions for a better system, scientists would love to hear a better way to do science. It must be remembers all the successes we've had under this system of govt/scientific bodies.



As someone who has studied the history of human intellectual evolution, I haven't seen any coherant explaination of the alternative to scientiific method, and I am certain that having congress make the choice is utter madness and would have us back in the dark ages in a hurry.



Mark.

Edited by entropy, 25 August 2006 - 05:17 PM.

Pick a system, follow the system, ignore everything else.

#27 Entropy3.0

Entropy3.0

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 2,207 posts

Posted 25 August 2006 - 05:27 PM

I'm going to throw my thinking in on this.

Global warming is a POSSIBILITY. Pollution from fossil fuels is an unavoidable reality. Dependance upon either unreliable and immoral regimes or upon depleting and dirty domestic resources is reality.

So, we have some reason to take steps that will lessen "green house gasses" regardless.

The real question is, how much, how fast and at what cost. What we do know is that it will be very hard to cut emissions drastically enough to make much of a difference in the eventual outcome near term. In fact, we know that if we take to drastic and draconian actions, we'll kill growth, which will, in all likelihood, decrease our ability to find additional solutions.

So, what do we do?

My read is that we should be seeking way to decrease dependance on and use of fossil fuels with a minimum of negative economic impact. To the degree that such efforts are anti growth, governments should take additional pro growth steps, by cutting spending on things that don't make sense (e.g. the "war on drugs") and cutting taxes.

At a minium, tax incentives should be created to promote the conversion to renewable power resources. There's a ton of wind, water, and solar power that can be generated at prices that aren't too much off current on a net-net basis. It's just that there's not enough incentive currently.

As we can see by Tesla, some amazing technologies come on line when the price of fuel gets high enough.

More will, but it'll happen more quickly if there's incentive to transition.

Mark





Then we agree very closely on what action should be taken currently, but since this makes too much sense it won't happen. ;) :D Either nothing will be done, or crazy amounts will be spent in the wrong area's as Kyoto proposed. Sigh. You'd think common sense would prevail in the world at least once just by pure chance! :lol:



Anyway, I'[m less concerned about global warming, than I am about the scientific illiteracy of the masses (50% believing the sun goes around the earth for example) in particular in regard to what is deemed 'science' and what isn't. Via this illiteracy is easy for political bodies to control opinion polls, and thereby manipulate politicans aka ID and stem cells, and if I thought it would stop there it would be OK....but it won't, so most scientists are now looking to defend all science very hard, to coomunicate more on message boards and elsewhere for fear of this underminding of science spreading....I think its a huge issue...most people I observe can be swayed ot believe just about anything, which is a very dangerous scenario for the health of our democracy....its only as good as the thinking/decision making of the electorate, and that ain't good.



Mark.

Edited by entropy, 25 August 2006 - 05:29 PM.

Pick a system, follow the system, ignore everything else.

#28 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 26 August 2006 - 09:42 AM

OEXCHAOS,

Great strides have been made in ethanol production and it has more promise that solar
or wind.

http://majorityright...anol_wars_over/


Entropy,

The globlal warming consensus of scientists is not the same the consensus of climatologists
who actually work in the field.

http://www.canadafre...arris061206.htm

Embryonic stem cell research is not important as compared to adult stem cell research.

http://www.fumento.c...utlookstem.html
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#29 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 26 August 2006 - 02:25 PM

Here's couple of youtube videos on Al Gore's Global Warming movie.



http://www.youtube.c...4...ted&search=

The second one is the hilarious South Park manbearpig episode.



Yes, I know; I have too much free time.
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#30 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 24,789 posts

Posted 20 September 2006 - 05:59 PM

Just because you don't believe in the Manbearpig doesn't mean it's not real. :P




Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused

By Kate Martin 9/19/2006 The Daily Reporter-Herald

Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nationís top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.