Or you have stated your opinion on it while avoiding discussion of actual empirical evidence.
Damn climate change!
- Thread starter Insidious Von
- Start date
And I am still waiting for an alternate theory. Science doesn't throw out a theory until they have a better one. This discussion can wait until you provide a better theory.
How many times have I answered this already?
For billions of years, the Earth has experienced changes in its climate. The overwhelming majority of those changes occurred before the Industrial Revolution.
At this point, there is nothing to suggest that anything has occurred recently that is any different from what has taken place for billions of years.
Since you claim to have a background in science, I'm confident you're not asking me to try to prove a negative. Nor, I'm sure, would you expect me to buy in to the premise that something unusual has occurred recently until that premise is actually supported by evidence (real evidence, not alarming headlines in Mother Jones).
I see. You feel I've been "avoiding" discussion of the fact the IPCC's predictions of how man-made CO2 emissions would affect the climate have been spectacularly wrong.
I don't think I have been avoiding that.
If you, did it's still clear you don't understand it if that's your take. To still call the predictions 'spectacularly' wrong even though they are well within range as shown in past post is again ignorance, wonted or not, or just stubbornness, I still can't tell for sure.
The big difference is few, if any, were as drastic or at a time with as many humans on board affect the human race.
The one factor everyone chooses to avoid is the untidy truth that an invasive species has taken over the planet.
There are twice as many people as there were 50 years ago. 3.5 Billion people. The load this places on resources is a significant cause of pollution and planet decimation that is undoubtedly placing a huge load on the environment. All the fracking and lake bombing in the world will not keep up with it. We are already seeing fresh water being pipelined from Canada.
Yet absolutely nobody wants think practically in terms of stemming the tide of little blessings, except perhaps China.
Putting plastic forks in the recycle container at Whole Foods will not cut it. What I am proposing a gentle insistence to act responsibly. If we as a species were successful in limiting the number of children we had through education, forethought and common sense, we would be showing at least some regard for their future.
There are twice as many people as there were 50 years ago. 3.5 Billion people. The load this places on resources is a significant cause of pollution and planet decimation that is undoubtedly placing a huge load on the environment. All the fracking and lake bombing in the world will not keep up with it. We are already seeing fresh water being pipelined from Canada.
Yet absolutely nobody wants think practically in terms of stemming the tide of little blessings, except perhaps China.
Putting plastic forks in the recycle container at Whole Foods will not cut it. What I am proposing a gentle insistence to act responsibly. If we as a species were successful in limiting the number of children we had through education, forethought and common sense, we would be showing at least some regard for their future.
So you're 'scientific' theory is that the world is doing it on it's own? Seriously? That's what your empirical evidence says? Do you believe in creation too?
Do you wonder why the vast majority of scientists disagree with you? Are all those people who work daily with direct evidence lying or are they too dumb to understand what you think the data says?
Besides that, are you not concerned how your allegedly natural climate change is impacting humanity?
Are you telling us that you don't believe there were ever any changes in the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Even worse, that you don't believe there is any evidence of changes to the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Are you kidding?
Do you understand the irony of using the man who made up the Gaia theory as someone to support your 'climate change is a religion' theory?
So far you've got Pat Sajak and the man who thinks the planet is a sentient being/god.
Your side isn't looking very swift so far.
Ok, a small test for you.
Should be easy for someone so smart, eh?
When was the last time CO2 levels hit 400ppm?
How different was the surface temperature of the planet estimated to be?
Can you answer those two questions?
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
But you have to way, way further back to find a time where the C02 levels are at our present 400ppm.
Your last chart doesn't go up to the present levels and doesn't go far enough into the past.
Here's a more accurate chart of the same time period.
I'm afraid those must be misquotes.
I've been assured that the individuals quoted above are only interested in pure science, and to suggest otherwise is a "conspiracy theory."
From the first one I looked into;
Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, is a well-respected climatologist who is also quite active in the media and politics – chances are you’ve seen him in something like The 11th Hour, read one of his books, or read an interview with him in the newspaper. Chances are, you’ve also seen the following quote attributed to him:
“You have guessed right,” he wrote. “It is a major misquote….leaving out the last sentence, leaving out the context….it is all explained in the Mediarology section of my website.”
Those who are really interested in this story are welcome to go and read that explanation, but I’ll summarize it quickly here for the rest of us. In a 1988 interview with Discover magazine, Dr Schneider was explaining how the media does not give climatologists a lot of time to explain anything thoroughly. As a scientist, he has an obligation to include all error and uncertainty measurements in statements, like any legitimate scientific report would. But as a human being, he needs to convey his message to the public in the couple of sentences journalists allow him.
This was the original quote:
So what should we learn from the sad story of the Schneider quote?
Whenever you see something particularly outrageous-sounding, don’t just accept it as fact. Find the original source, the original interview. Email the guy if you have to. Figure out what they really meant. Then you have enough information to decide what to believe.
I'll probably leave the other quotes to someone else.
We have this; http://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/
Dr Stephen Schneider, of Stanford University, is a well-respected climatologist who is also quite active in the media and politics – chances are you’ve seen him in something like The 11th Hour, read one of his books, or read an interview with him in the newspaper. Chances are, you’ve also seen the following quote attributed to him:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
When I first saw this quote in a YouTube comment, I assumed it was completely fabricated. But then I did a Google search on the exact quote and found thousands of hits. Still, they were all from either blogs or newspaper editorials, which are quite low on our credibility spectrum, so I felt sure there must be more to the story. My guess was that it was taken completely out of context and/or rearranged like one of those “found poems” they make you write in elementary school. I had seen Dr Schneider’s work before and he seemed like much too reasonable a man to say something like this and mean it.
I wrote an email to Dr Schneider, asking if he could quickly explain where the quote came from, even though he’s probably been asked about it countless times. I’ve found that university professors, even those like Dr Schneider who are undoubtedly busy, are quite good about answering email. As long as you’re polite and show a genuine interest in having your question answered, they write back quite promptly with some direction for you.When I first saw this quote in a YouTube comment, I assumed it was completely fabricated. But then I did a Google search on the exact quote and found thousands of hits. Still, they were all from either blogs or newspaper editorials, which are quite low on our credibility spectrum, so I felt sure there must be more to the story. My guess was that it was taken completely out of context and/or rearranged like one of those “found poems” they make you write in elementary school. I had seen Dr Schneider’s work before and he seemed like much too reasonable a man to say something like this and mean it.
“You have guessed right,” he wrote. “It is a major misquote….leaving out the last sentence, leaving out the context….it is all explained in the Mediarology section of my website.”
Those who are really interested in this story are welcome to go and read that explanation, but I’ll summarize it quickly here for the rest of us. In a 1988 interview with Discover magazine, Dr Schneider was explaining how the media does not give climatologists a lot of time to explain anything thoroughly. As a scientist, he has an obligation to include all error and uncertainty measurements in statements, like any legitimate scientific report would. But as a human being, he needs to convey his message to the public in the couple of sentences journalists allow him.
This was the original quote:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
With the full quote, it’s easy to see that Dr Schneider was attacking, not supporting, the “sound-bite system”. But an attack editoral from the Detroit News selectively cut out parts of the above quote, publishing the following:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
His message is completely changed.
So what should we learn from the sad story of the Schneider quote?
Whenever you see something particularly outrageous-sounding, don’t just accept it as fact. Find the original source, the original interview. Email the guy if you have to. Figure out what they really meant. Then you have enough information to decide what to believe.
I'll probably leave the other quotes to someone else.
An Interesting link in the above article was this one; credibility spectrum
At the bottom of the spectrum we have the individual. This is someone with no formal education in the field of climate science. Bloggers generally fall into this category, which is why I plan to refrain from creating my own “expert analysis” of data on this blog.
Above that we have the professional. This is someone who is not a scientist, but is in an occupation that requires them to keep up to date with science. High school teachers are a good example, as well as politicians or CEOs.
Then we have the non-publishing scientist. Someone with a scientific background, but who is not currently publishing peer-reviewed literature, does not necessarily follow methods which are accepted by the scientific community. They have a good knowledge of science, but lack the “peer-reviewed” credential.
Above that is the publishing scientist in any area, such as medicine, physics, or chemistry. Even if they do not study climate change, they have the basic scientific background to understand it, as well as the “peer-reviewed” check on their scientific methods.
The publishing Earth scientist specializes in areas closer to climate science, such as geography, geology, or environmental science. They have a more in-depth knowledge of the way the biogeochemical systems of the Earth work.
The publishing climatologist (or atmospheric physicist/radiative physicist/any other area that’s so relevant to climatology that we can basically classify it as climatology) is the best you can get in terms of the individual professional. They understand more about climate change, and have more widely approved methods, than any other scientist.
Above the individuals come groups. Universities are generally quite up-to-date in their scientific knowledge, as they are training scientists-to-be, and have a large number of scientific professors behind their statements.
Peer-reviewed scientific articles are often written by more than one scientist, and have undergone an extensive review process. These articles minimize bias or misconceptions as much as science possibly can.
Finally, professional scientific organizations employ thousands of publishing scientists, have massive reputations to uphold, and often publish their own peer-reviewed journals. Their statements carry more weight than any others.
This isn’t to say that the NAS is infallible, or that the blogger is always wrong. The credibility spectrum is simply a tool used to decide how much weight to give a statement.
So go do some reading. Do some searching and reading and watching. See what individuals, professionals, groups and scientific bodies are saying about climate change. Assess their credentials. Decide who you’re going to believe.
At the bottom of the spectrum we have the individual. This is someone with no formal education in the field of climate science. Bloggers generally fall into this category, which is why I plan to refrain from creating my own “expert analysis” of data on this blog.
Above that we have the professional. This is someone who is not a scientist, but is in an occupation that requires them to keep up to date with science. High school teachers are a good example, as well as politicians or CEOs.
Then we have the non-publishing scientist. Someone with a scientific background, but who is not currently publishing peer-reviewed literature, does not necessarily follow methods which are accepted by the scientific community. They have a good knowledge of science, but lack the “peer-reviewed” credential.
Above that is the publishing scientist in any area, such as medicine, physics, or chemistry. Even if they do not study climate change, they have the basic scientific background to understand it, as well as the “peer-reviewed” check on their scientific methods.
The publishing Earth scientist specializes in areas closer to climate science, such as geography, geology, or environmental science. They have a more in-depth knowledge of the way the biogeochemical systems of the Earth work.
The publishing climatologist (or atmospheric physicist/radiative physicist/any other area that’s so relevant to climatology that we can basically classify it as climatology) is the best you can get in terms of the individual professional. They understand more about climate change, and have more widely approved methods, than any other scientist.
Above the individuals come groups. Universities are generally quite up-to-date in their scientific knowledge, as they are training scientists-to-be, and have a large number of scientific professors behind their statements.
Peer-reviewed scientific articles are often written by more than one scientist, and have undergone an extensive review process. These articles minimize bias or misconceptions as much as science possibly can.
Finally, professional scientific organizations employ thousands of publishing scientists, have massive reputations to uphold, and often publish their own peer-reviewed journals. Their statements carry more weight than any others.
This isn’t to say that the NAS is infallible, or that the blogger is always wrong. The credibility spectrum is simply a tool used to decide how much weight to give a statement.
So go do some reading. Do some searching and reading and watching. See what individuals, professionals, groups and scientific bodies are saying about climate change. Assess their credentials. Decide who you’re going to believe.
What a typically dishonest comment.
I could respond in time and ask you if you believe there were massive extinctions in the past but I won't.
What the evidence currently shows is that the climate is changing at a rapid rate that will cause significant problems for humanity and the changes are significantly driven by greenhouse gases. We know exactly how CO2 among other gases behave in absorbing several frequencies of light including infrared and releasing them again as infrared. The science behind the behaviour of greenhouse gases is extremely solid. We also know that post industrial revolution, the percentage of atmospheric CO2 has been climbing as we burn hydrocarbons and deforest areas.
Of course you won't address these scientific facts but merely fall back on your conspiracy theories. Have you find many scientists that support your view that current global warming is purely a phenomena not related to humanity?
Are you saying that using these partial quotes as criticism would be like calling Swift a monster for publishing A Modest Proposal?
p.s. The quotes about population are true. Our current activities are unsustainable with our current population.
