Thread: More global warming shown to be false!

Thanks for stepping in Doc, I was about to.

Of course global warming is real! Have you guys not seen `The Day After Tomorrow`? Its gonna happen and it will happen overnight!! I know! I saw it!!

I never did like Dennis Quaide much anyway though.....

Originally Posted by JohnP

And yet, the scientists who are buddy buddy with the politicians? support your side of the story.

And yet the scientists working for the government had thier work censored by the current administration.

sorry, I'm trying to stay out of this one, but that was a bit egregious to me.

Edit: I didn't make clear that the scientists working for the current administration supported the theory of global warming.

JohnP

"I concede one point on that, although it still does nothing to support your beliefs that people are the primary causers of global warming. It also is a theory that has no real empirical evidence that has been tested in the strictest sense of the word-but it works on paper. It also has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

Granted that Einstein's theories of relativity (both general and special) have nothing to do with this topic, I just have to point out that you are misinformed. There are tests almost daily dealing with relativistic situations. See work by Francis Halzen and the Icecube neutrino detection project in Antarctica that will have huge implications for particle physics, as well as the sundry experiments done at CERN the World's leader in theoretical physics testing.

Besides, relativity does not just work on paper, the above examples are entities that deal with the extremely complex details of the theory but the broad effects are well known and accounted for by any organization dealing with space flight (since in orbit you are moving at "significant" fractions of the speed of light and thus relativity comes into play and time is distorted relative to earthlings) as well as every astronomer and cosmologist working in their field.

Both yourself and Kantian put forth extremely knowledgeable information, which is impressive to a person who would love to have that much exposure to such a weighty field. Please continue adding info if you would.

Russel

First of all, I want to say that if I've angered or offended anyone here that I'm sorry for that. I don't typically apologize for the emotions I cause in others (you can ask my wife about that) because I don't typically feel that I am responsible for the way others feel when I present the facts and arguments about a situation as I understand them. But I do recognize that some of my latter posts betrayed the anger and frustration I was feeling at having to deal with what I felt were childish "gotcha" games, and for allowing those feelings to color my posts, I apologize.

However, I am still interested in making some headway on this issue. Since I have already presented evidence and argument in support of my beliefs, I will simply ask one further question, and then explain the reasons and implications for this question.

To those of you who deny that global climate change is occurring, or that human activity is the primary (as in first) cause of this occurrence, is there any possible evidence or argument that you could think of that would convince you that your beliefs here are wrong? If requested, I would be happy to give a short list of the evidence that would convince me that my beliefs that these things are true are in fact wrong.

The reason I ask this question is both simple and subtle. If you cannot think of any possible evidence that would change your mind, then your beliefs here are not a matter of fact, but a matter of faith. Please don't mistake me, I don't want to denigrate faith by this statement. I have many beliefs that I take on faith as well. Faith is a belief that one is not willing to abandon, no matter what happens. Among the things that I take on faith are "Humans have free will," "The universe is understandable and science is the means of understanding it" "No one intentionally does what they believe to be absolutely wrong," "In general, mankind is continually progressing in both understanding and morality" and many others along those lines.

If you admit that there is no evidence or argument that can change your mind on this issue, then we have truly reached the end of this discussion. I don't want to attack anyone's faith, just as I don't want anyone to attack mine. But if, after searching your beliefs, you do find that there could be some evidence that would change your mind, please, tell us what it is. But also, please be aware that if the evidence you require cannot possibly be found or presented by some finite sequence of investigative activity, then you have not met the requirement that would remove that belief from among the pantheon of your articles of faith. In other words, if you require some absolutely perfect weather predicting model that tells you even such details as the precise time that rain will fall and the precise amounts of rain you will get at your locale and when the sun will come back out, you should be aware that such a model is not physically possible, and so this requirement does not make your belief not an article of faith.

I await your responses.

P.S. Thank you Russel, for pointing out that G.R. is an eminently testable model. It was first tested by Sir Arthur Eddington in South Africa, where he verified the deflection of light from a distant star as it passed nearby our sun during a total solar eclipse. This verification was somewhat controversial at the time, but since then, we have tested and verified other aspects of the theory, such as time dilation. This test involved two, highly precise atomic clocks which were synchronized. One clock was put into low-earth orbit (so it would move very very fast) for some time, and the other was kept on the ground. When they were returned, the orbital clock was running behind the ground-based clock within .1% of the amount predicted by General Relativity. Indeed, atomic clocks are now so precise that they can detect the time differential that occurs between the tops of very tall buildings and their basements due to the effects of Earth's gravity well on the structure of space-time. General Relativity does not just "work on paper" (and by this, I can only assume that you mean something like it is internally consistent. It is, but the math that proves this is well beyond most people, including me) but it also works in the real world to a very high degree of accuracy.

Actually arguing over the origin of "global climate change" is useless, whether or not we are responsible is immaterial. I just get very very sick of being told I should feel guilty because I live in a developed nation, and therefore am responsible for it. I also get sick of being told be these same people that I should feel guilty and pay for being white, a man, employable, hard working and educated. I refuse to feel guilty for my very acts required by existing and trying to excel in this world. This is why I rebel against the very idea. Not because of any evidence but because the spin of those arguing is that I should feel guilty an therefore be willing to sacrifice my freedom and reason to the "experts" who will then control my life and tell me what to do.

I also add my Strongest protest to you that you have no idea of the political actions I take or the activities I engage in outside this board.

Hear hear!!

I will apologize again for the insinuations and groundless accusations I have made in previous posts. I'm not going to edit or delete those posts because I don't believe in covering up one's mistakes. I'm sure that you and JMS are honorable people who try to do what you think is right.

And I recognize and empathize with the feelings and frustrations you are experiencing. I realize that the efforts of many to get people to recognize the responsibilities that come with the privilege of living in a developed and civilized country have often been clumsy and alienating. I don't want you to feel guilty or ashamed about anything, but if that's how you feel when you are told that frivolous use of internal combustion vehicles and excess use of electricity are damaging the climate and our collective future for potential happiness on this planet, then I can't help that.

But none of this is a reason to deny that global warming is occurring and that mankind is the cause. As I said before, personally, I don't think there's anything that can practically be done about it, I think it's already too far gone, and we're just going to have to adapt to this changing reality. I don't think there's anything to feel guilty or ashamed about, because by the time we realized what was going on, it's too late. I could be wrong about it being too late, so I'm not willing to stand in the way of efforts to try to stop it, and if my participation is required for this effort to be effective, then I will do my best to help out. This is something I'd rather be wrong about than right.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I will apologize again for the insinuations and groundless accusations I have made in previous posts. I'm not going to edit or delete those posts because I don't believe in covering up one's mistakes. I'm sure that you and JMS are honorable people who try to do what you think is right.

And I recognize and empathize with the feelings and frustrations you are experiencing. I realize that the efforts of many to get people to recognize the responsibilities that come with the privilege of living in a developed and civilized country have often been clumsy and alienating. I don't want you to feel guilty or ashamed about anything, but if that's how you feel when you are told that frivolous use of internal combustion vehicles and excess use of electricity are damaging the climate and our collective future for potential happiness on this planet, then I can't help that.

But none of this is a reason to deny that global warming is occurring and that mankind is the cause. As I said before, personally, I don't think there's anything that can practically be done about it, I think it's already too far gone, and we're just going to have to adapt to this changing reality. I don't think there's anything to feel guilty or ashamed about, because by the time we realized what was going on, it's too late. I could be wrong about it being too late, so I'm not willing to stand in the way of efforts to try to stop it, and if my participation is required for this effort to be effective, then I will do my best to help out. This is something I'd rather be wrong about than right.

It seems you have a talent for slapping people across the face as you apologize!

I guess I'm done!

Originally Posted by Nickelking

And yet the scientists working for the government had thier work censored by the current administration.

sorry, I'm trying to stay out of this one, but that was a bit egregious to me.

Edit: I didn't make clear that the scientists working for the current administration supported the theory of global warming.

If you look deeper there has been much censorship and scoffing from both sides of this debate. In a sense, you have agreed with me. State climatologists have been fired for questioning the theories, for instance. It has become pop-sci "common knowledge" before the data has all even been weighed. In fact, while many scientists would no doubt agree the planet has seen a recent increase in temperature, there is not an overwhelming majority that instantly concludes the cause of this is the widely agreed upon amount of 14% of CO2, which is itself less than 5% of total greenhouse gas (doing the math, this would be around 0.7% or less than one hundredth of total greenhouse gases) is the sole cause of the climate differences experienced in the later few years. To equal even a 1 percent change we would have to almost double our CO2 output. If there is a rumbling freight train, I think there is more at play behind the locomotive than simply CO2 emissions. What CO2 emissions DOES do however is provide governments with a new way to tax vehicles, fuel, and ultimately, gain still greater control on their subjects...err...citizens.
Just because an idea is popular with the politicians from one party or the other does not make it correct. There is too much political grandstanding on both sides and not enough genuine science. If you read through my posts, I've not once challenged that the planet has gotten warmer, only the (IMHO) too rapidly jumped to conclusions concerning what is or is not causing it to happen.
Anyone can predict what they think the climate is or is not doing, based on charts such as the ones KP posted, but those charts fail to establish that a government program is the answer. They don't even explain the global net loss of 1 degree last year, and the models often throw out solar activity and other such variables.
Governments stand to make an enormous sum of money and gain much power by positioning themselves as the savior from this latest Grendel they have partially at least, created.
KP-apology accepted and returned in kind.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

The reason I ask this question is both simple and subtle. If you cannot think of any possible evidence that would change your mind, then your beliefs here are not a matter of fact, but a matter of faith.

I guess much of what bothers me about your positions is that while I admittedly am a skeptic and wholeheartedly drink "Skeptic" flavor kool-aid, I believe you are in denial and also fixed in your beliefs. I do not fault you for it, but try to see that the street goes both ways in this case. If I disagree with your belief, it is because I question the validity of claims that do not include other causative factors into the equation, not because my education in science is lacking, or even because my logic is flawed. Simply put you have accepted as fact things which I still have doubts over. There is much motive for supporting the man-caused climate changes, but not much to gain by sticking to simple stewardship, which while accomplishing the same end goals, does not give governments or de-facto think tanks more power.
Apparently, it has been demonstrated I am not a theoretical high-energy physicist, although I really do fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand. FWIW It has been quite a few years since I was tangling with physics, so it is possible that is not my strong suit. It was difficult for me to imagine at the time I posted how one would effect a change in gravity without altering mass, speed of light, etc. etc. of course, in the stone age when I was in college, it was still "impossible" to exceed the speed of light, and the hints that it might be possible were just starting to surface wrt subatomic particles behaving in manners previously not thought possible.
I would love to check out some of the information you refer to G R as I am intrigued by it, although it is not likely something I can make practical use of. Still, just because I'm not an astronaut doesn't mean I *wouldn't* love a ride in the Space Shuttle....

WildTim, I feel your pain here, although I do believe everyone is well-meaning. It is just difficult for people on my side and K P's to accept some middle ground in a topic that has received so much hot media and political attention as to have become a ridiculously charged topic.

John P.