Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[licker]

Originally Posted by Tichy

Unfortunately, this strawman didn't need to be invoked; he started talking all by himself.

Your logic sounds to me like this, licker: "Laws against murder don't prevent all murders, therefore we shouldn't have laws against murder."

Dang it. Snaked by Tifone.

Really?

What LAWS are we talking about? We're talking about climate change and species adapting to said changes. The point is that the climate has changed time and time again with zero input from mankind and that species have lived and died with zero input from mankind.

To be sure, I am not for more pollution, but to think that we can somehow control the climate is pure nonsense.

Should we actively try to destroy species? Certainly not.
Should we actively try to save species? Probably so.
Should we use flawed methodologies and pure speculation to justify our reactions? ...

Flamewar...

*chuckle*

You think this is a flamewar?

But yes using smallpox as a foil to GW is quite the strawman, and rather irrelevant. Or were you saying that we shouldn't have wiped out smallpox? OMG GENOCIDE!!!

See I can do it too

[llamabeast]

Should we use flawed methodologies and pure speculation to justify our reactions?

Obviously people who want to take action against global warming wouldn't consider their belief in the worthwhileness of doing so to be based on flawed methodologies and pure speculation.

So, I accept that there are quite a few scientists who don't believe that we can in any way alleviate global warming by cutting CO2 emissions, either because they believe it's not happening, because they think it's not our fault, or perhaps because they think it's a lost cause, I don't know.

However, the considerable majority of scientists take the opposite point of view.

What I don't understand is what you, licker, or others in your position, believe motivates these scientists? Of course now it is a fairly standard belief, but originally it was a real maverick thing to believe in. So it's not just herd mentality or something like that. The only reason I can think you might have is that it's a conspiracy - but if you believe academia works in such a way that a majority of scientists can be coopted into a conspiracy then you are way off. And besides I can't imagine what the point behind such a conspiracy might be, being as taking action against global warming is bad for everyone's economies. So I assume you don't think that. Why, then, do you think this mad majority of scientists believe in these "flawed methodologies" and this "pure speculation"? I'm genuinely interested to know.

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

So, I accept that there are quite a few scientists who don't believe that we can in any way alleviate global warming by cutting CO2 emissions, either because they believe it's not happening, because they think it's not our fault, or perhaps because they think it's a lost cause, I don't know.

...or some because they're paid by the oil majors...

(Some links already provided above)

Originally Posted by licker

To be sure, I am not for more pollution, but to think that we can somehow control the climate is pure nonsense.

Silver iodide used in cloud seeding can make it rain. As a random example.

Reducing the pollution of gases which create the Greenhouse effect and the Ozone Depletion can reduce the man-induced increasing of temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

No-"pure nonsense" and no sorcery. Just bare physics, really.

Originally Posted by licker

Or were you saying that we shouldn't have wiped out smallpox? OMG GENOCIDE!!!

See I can do it too

As you are the one saying we shouldn't wipe out global warming like smallpox, yes you can do it too, but against yourself, my friend

[Tichy]

Perhaps I haven't been following this thread with the attention required to nail down every detail, but I have no idea what you're talking about at this point, licker.

The 'laws' I refer to in the analogy with murder are regulations undertaken to reduce harmful emissions. The strawman I'm talking about rises up in your latest post. It's the assumption you think your opponents hold, namely that we can somehow control the climate from the top-down. Thus you argue, impertinently: "We can't completely control it, therefore we shouldn't try."

Nobody's saying that we can control the climate. But we can control *our* behavior in order to put less stress on it. The fact that you seem to be in favor of at least some regulations like this make me unsure what you're after now, except for annoyance with Al Gore.

[Edi]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

I'd just like to mention that Edi's post on page 5 was the most impressive thing I've seen today.

Edi is Finnish, ergo, not a native English speaker.

He just argued using scientific English. I can understand it, but using it? Way above my level of comfort.


Salute!

Thanks for the compliment.

I've read so much English down the years that I speak it at a native level unless we're talking about some very specific fields like medicine, advanced math, cooking and similar areas that I have not been exposed to that much.

I didn't even consider my post to be anything special, as about the only complex term it contains is 'albedo' (i.e. reflective capability).

[licker]

Originally Posted by Tichy

The 'laws' I refer to in the analogy with murder are regulations undertaken to reduce harmful emissions. The strawman I'm talking about rises up in your latest post. It's the assumption you think your opponents hold, namely that we can somehow control the climate from the top-down. Thus you argue, impertinently: "We can't completely control it, therefore we shouldn't try."

Where do I say anything like that? Indeed I believe I actually say the opposite, though my concern is not with what happens to a handful of species, since if your concern is generally for species you really have alot more work cut out for you than just worrying about ones negatively affected by warmer temperatures.

Originally Posted by Tichy

Nobody's saying that we can control the climate. But we can control *our* behavior in order to put less stress on it. The fact that you seem to be in favor of at least some regulations like this make me unsure what you're after now, except for annoyance with Al Gore.

Err...

I read these statements pretty clearly as people saying they want us to make the temperature go down. Not just stop going up. The contention is that our inputs to the climate may or may not have near the impact on this temperature change some people think it does. We are likely currently (and for the last 2 years now if not longer) in a cool down. What have we changed to contribute to this cool down? Nothing to do with CO2 obviously.

I am in favor of reducing the US demand on foreign sources of energy, I am in favor of reducing pollution generally (though CO2 is not technically a pollutant, it often accompanies other pollutants), and I am in favor of more personal responsibility for ones energy and material use.

None of that has anything to do with GW though as far as I am concerned, and the costs of preventing GW are greater than the costs of adapting or mitigating.

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=164002

[Tifone]

...CO2 is just the principal greenhouse gas in the earth atmosphere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

And as already tried to explain (but with little success I think) greenhouse effect *does* cool down the temperatures when year after year cold fresh air melting on the poles go to interfere and slow down important currents like the the north atlantic one (for diminished salinity of the ocean and counter-currents).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

PS. Also, some temporary cool down is scientifically irrelevant and not contrary to the theory: - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777

PPS Oh about your last link. Nice finding of external source on the Wiki. But let's have fun and read the sentence that leads to it:

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, (and here is your link!) the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.(two links here showing the majority, and many others here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)

[cleveland]

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

Here's a useful guide for everyone to read up on and study the Flamewarrior classes so that they can better identify everyone and study up their foe's common tactics.

Illustrated Guide to Flamewarriors

also, heres a short entry on Uncy with a nice flowchart to help you follow the flamewar resolution process.

Flamewar Dispute Resolution Flowchart

My favorite: http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/palooka.htm
I just can't stop laughing at that picture. And I can't help but think of a few Palookas around here...

[licker]

Originally Posted by Tifone

...CO2 is just the principal greenhouse gas in the earth atmosphere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

And as already tried to explain (but with little success I think) greenhouse effect *does* cool down the temperatures when year after year cold fresh air melting on the poles go to interfere and slow down important currents like the the north atlantic one (for diminished salinity of the ocean and counter-currents).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

PS. Also, some temporary cool down is scientifically irrelevant and not contrary to the theory: - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777

CO2 is NOT the principle GHG, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that, but Methane and Water vapor dominate it either in concentration or green house activity.

Further the slow down to the gulf stream is not a global effect, and would have little to no effect on the SH where some of the largest cooldowns have been reported. However, I assume you will counter with antarctic melt.

However, if we look at heat as energy rather than temperature (since that is infact the correct way to look at it) if the atmosphere has been trapping more energy we should be able to find that energy somewhere, and lately, we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.

So we are probably left to agree with the scientist who are showing that the sun is by far the most important player in our climate (not that most people deny this, but some tend to downplay it), and there's really not a hell of a lot we can do to control the sun.

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, (and here is your link!) the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.(two links here showing the majority, and many others here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)

Ehh? I wasn't on the wiki at all for that. But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right? The point of that letter was quite clear in stating that the IPCC policy report is a highly flawed and totally politicized report. If you actually read the entire IPCC report you will likely get a different feel for the issue than if you just read the policy summary.

Further the commonly used IPCC report is now 4 years out of date, and the science reviewed in it even further out of date.

[Tifone]

Ahah, Edi's totally a: - http://www.flamewarriors.com/warrior...ngfumaster.htm