Vaginas, Sea Level, and the Beginning of Reality

[BlueHen86]

But banning the words? Evidently you're not a fan of science...or vaginas. Got it!

Just getting back to this after several days of doing stuff like fishing. I am a fan of both science and vaginas.

When it comes to "science" understand this: According to the textbook used for two graduate level Experimental Statistics courses I took, climate science isn't even really "science." It's observational study. According to that textbook, to have "science" you have to have controlled experiments. And, as I noted in an earlier post, the Physical Science Basis report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concedes that "unequivocal" attribution of causes of climate change would require experiments that can't be conducted.

I wouldn't go so far as to say, as my Experimental Statistics text author did, that observational study doesn't quality as "science." I think there is such a thing as "descriptive" science. But observational study does have limitations. It really is true that you are not supposed to, if you're really going to follow "science," make cause and effect statement without qualification when you're dealing with observational data.

As for banning the word "vagina?" No, I'm not for that. I couldn't care less if somebody says "vagina" during public debate.

BTW, even though I personally would allow that observational study can be "science," take a look at the four basic steps of the scientific method from http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu:8080/ ... ndixE.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

It's kind of hard to complete that process without controlled experiments. Let me know when Climate Scientists produce a controlled experiment involving the effect on earth-type planets of anthropogenic activity.

Who gives a fuck what you call it. The issue is climate change and the effect that man has on it, not whether climate change is science, observational study or voodoo.

Talk about missing the forest through the trees. Sheesh.

[JohnStOnge]

Well if we know the effects of all the gases in earth's atmosphere, having tested each's interaction within lab experimentation, along with observing the effects of greenhouse gases on other planets such as Venus, would that not be sufficient?

No. There is no way to simulate a planetary system with a biosphere and open to outer space in the laboratory.

And it's not just a question of whether the planet is warmer than it would be without anthropogenic activity. It's the process of saying that if anthropogenic inputs increase or decrease by X then Y will happen with respect to global mean temperature or some other aspect of the climate with some defined level of precision.

YT, I am going to refer you to something from the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" that illustrates the problem. Go to http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the pdf verson. Once you get to the pdf version click on "Summary for Policymakers." Then go to the bottom of page 3 to footnote 6. There you will see the following statement:

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to
indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or
a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely
< 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5% (see Box TS.1 for more
details).

What they're doing there is conferring a air of quantitative analysis upon opinion.

In the next footnote they refer to "confidence." But a confidence level with respect to cause and effect cannot be established without a controlled experiment.

[JohnStOnge]

Who gives a **** what you call it. The issue is climate change and the effect that man has on it, not whether climate change is science, observational study or voodoo.

Talk about missing the forest through the trees. Sheesh

I think you are missing the point. The issue may be climate change, but that does not change the fact that the scientific method requires experiments. When you're talking about the causes of climate change and the extent to which each cause has an effect the question of whether or not you can conduct controlled experiments becomes very important.

[BlueHen86]

Who gives a **** what you call it. The issue is climate change and the effect that man has on it, not whether climate change is science, observational study or voodoo.

Talk about missing the forest through the trees. Sheesh

I think you are missing the point. The issue may be climate change, but that does not change the fact that the scientific method requires experiments. When you're talking about the causes of climate change and the extent to which each cause has an effect the question of whether or not you can conduct controlled experiments becomes very important.

No, you're missing the point. Holy shit, we get it, you think you're an expert an experiments and the scientific method etc. Good for you.

While you're telling us how scientists aren't doing their experiments properly; glaciers are shrinking at a pace never seen before in our life time and we're setting high temperature records at a pace alse never seen before in our lifetime.

Meanwhile you are boring us with definitions. Keep up the good work, you are a legend in your own mind.

[JohnStOnge]

No, you're missing the point. Holy ****, we get it, you think you're an expert an experiments and the scientific method etc. Good for you.

While you're telling us how scientists aren't doing their experiments properly; glaciers are shrinking at a pace never seen before in our life time and we're setting high temperature records at a pace alse never seen before in our lifetime.

Meanwhile you are boring us with definitions. Keep up the good work, you are a legend in your own mind.

It's not what I think. Google "Scientific Method." Otherwise, do you realize how, in context, how short a period "our lifetime" is? I think you do.

I don't think that, over time, I have asked people to accept my contentions about what it takes to infer cause and effect based on "I say so." In the past i have provided various references. I have quoted a graduate level Experimental Statistics textbook and I guess I can do it again here if you want.

It's not me. It's what's required.

[Ibanez]

Why aren't we discussing Cow Farts? Am I the ONLY person that cares?

[BlueHen86]

No, you're missing the point. Holy ****, we get it, you think you're an expert an experiments and the scientific method etc. Good for you.

While you're telling us how scientists aren't doing their experiments properly; glaciers are shrinking at a pace never seen before in our life time and we're setting high temperature records at a pace alse never seen before in our lifetime.

Meanwhile you are boring us with definitions. Keep up the good work, you are a legend in your own mind.

It's not what I think. Google "Scientific Method." Otherwise, do you realize how, in context, how short a period "our lifetime" is? I think you do.

I don't think that, over time, I have asked people to accept my contentions about what it takes to infer cause and effect based on "I say so." In the past i have provided various references. I have quoted a graduate level Experimental Statistics textbook and I guess I can do it again here if you want.

It's not me. It's what's required.

If I open the window and I see water coming down, I know it's raining. I don't need some jackass quoting a textbook telling me so.

Good for you and your ability to quote the gruaduate level stat work of others, I'm not impressed, but good for you just the same. Keep telling us how great you are, maybe someone is impressed.

[BlueHen86]

Why aren't we discussing Cow Farts? Am I the ONLY person that cares?

JSO cares. But did the cow create the fart? Or was it the other way around? Without a grad level stat student and a text book you ca'nt be sure. At the minimum you need a self important jackass.

[AZGrizFan]

Now you're starting to get it. TRUE experimentation and data analysis don't presuppose a result. TRUE experimentation draws conclusions from the data, not vice versa. BOUGHT AND PAID FOR "experimentation", on the other hand, might make pretty damned sure their "result" fits the agenda of those paying the bills, no? Otherwise, the gravy train might stop. There are countless examples of data being eliminated or ignored that didn't fit "the model", data being manipulated to make the answer fit the agenda, etc., etc. Again, if you don't think it's out there, or if you don't think there's an opposition voice you are CHOOSING not to see it.

And I have no idea what you're talking about in that last sentence. Purely nonsensical.

You're ranting about a donk wet dream. come on now.

I still can't believe you buy this notion that there's a conspiracy. There's absolutely no reason to support funding for a dead end. There's no evidence of discarded data (unless you are willing to cite it, but I highly doubt that), and as I said, if the government is paying for a study, they are going to want the answers. There is no such thing as paying for pro or anti AGW data because the data itself self-evidently supports either position, but not from the outset, and the fact that you think the government doesn't have any denialists to block said funding or syphon it off to "anti" experimentation, you're pretty naive, given the fact that there are plenty of denialists in congress and in the U.S in general. Politicians control the budget, not scientists

Dude, your blind-faith belief in the government's altruism regarding AGW research is the very DEFINITION of naive. What are you? 20? You'll grow up one day, get some hair under your arms and your privates, and come to the same realization as most of the sane world. The government is NOT here to help...anybody but THEMSELVES.

[youngterrier]

You're ranting about a donk wet dream. come on now.

I still can't believe you buy this notion that there's a conspiracy. There's absolutely no reason to support funding for a dead end. There's no evidence of discarded data (unless you are willing to cite it, but I highly doubt that), and as I said, if the government is paying for a study, they are going to want the answers. There is no such thing as paying for pro or anti AGW data because the data itself self-evidently supports either position, but not from the outset, and the fact that you think the government doesn't have any denialists to block said funding or syphon it off to "anti" experimentation, you're pretty naive, given the fact that there are plenty of denialists in congress and in the U.S in general. Politicians control the budget, not scientists

Dude, your blind-faith belief in the government's altruism regarding AGW research is the very DEFINITION of naive. What are you? 20? You'll grow up one day, get some hair under your arms and your privates, and come to the same realization as most of the sane world. The government is NOT here to help...anybody but THEMSELVES.

Dude, I haven't said anything about government altruism, all I've talked about is the science and the lack of logic from a scientists perspective (and counter to that, the government's perspective) in the concept of a "conspiracy." And if you actually think, you'll see it's bullshit too.
But hey this is how our conversation goes:

You: CONSPIRACY
Me: No, and here's why____________(explanation)
You: NO CONSPIRACY, DONKS HATE US OUAgrjmtr;no

I mean really, you're not even proposing substance, just blind talking points. You clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the purpose of data collecting or experimentation. I can only conclude that you're either extremely stupid and deluded by philosophy or you're trolling. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[youngterrier]

Well if we know the effects of all the gases in earth's atmosphere, having tested each's interaction within lab experimentation, along with observing the effects of greenhouse gases on other planets such as Venus, would that not be sufficient?

No. There is no way to simulate a planetary system with a biosphere and open to outer space in the laboratory.

And it's not just a question of whether the planet is warmer than it would be without anthropogenic activity. It's the process of saying that if anthropogenic inputs increase or decrease by X then Y will happen with respect to global mean temperature or some other aspect of the climate with some defined level of precision.

YT, I am going to refer you to something from the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" that illustrates the problem. Go to http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... tents.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the pdf verson. Once you get to the pdf version click on "Summary for Policymakers." Then go to the bottom of page 3 to footnote 6. There you will see the following statement:

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to
indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or
a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely >
95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely
< 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5% (see Box TS.1 for more
details).

What they're doing there is conferring a air of quantitative analysis upon opinion.

In the next footnote they refer to "confidence." But a confidence level with respect to cause and effect cannot be established without a controlled experiment.

Even though we have the technology to know what our atmosphere's composition is, what emissions happen yearly, and test how those gases interact with each other, and also can test what gases are coming in from space? Come on man. Get real

So basically you're conceding that there is absolutely nothing that will convince you that AGW is happening other than direct experimentation. You're basically conceding that you won't get into any discussion over the matter, not even to discuss about the science and induction involved, and no matter how much evidence accumulates in favor of the idea of AGW you'll just cross your arms, declare victory, simply because we can't test said conclusions on massive global level. There is no sense in even talking with you because you set the standard so inconceivably high that's impossible to meet that standard, thus you can maintain your position because of semantics and philosophical bullshit. It's like arguing with a child who doesn't want to take his flu shots because he's not convinced that they work for everyone, because they haven't tested them on everyone.

[Chizzang]

The government is NOT here to help...anybody but THEMSELVES.

unfortunately that right there needs to be the opening line - before any debate on politics even begins...
Let us be be deceived
Committees do not dissolve themselves
Departments do not seek less influence and less funding
Politicians do not demure

[Baldy]

Actually it's been a scientific fact that the world was round since the BC times, using shadows and geometry in Egypt, not to mention the numerous amount of experimentation that happened between then before we circumnavigated the globe showed that the world was spherical. My point was that scientifically speaking, sciences knows or has a good idea about shit before we make such a grand experiment such as launching things into space or circumnavigating the globe.

Hence why I said AGW is nothing but a vague hypothesis. The earth is an open system and there is no possible way to account for the elements being emitted by the earth or the elements entering the earth's atmosphere.

You're going to have to cite that 400 to 500 ppm, you haven't proven temperature increases are bunk, you've only stated. Certainly temperature reading are taken differently, but I highly doubt that they haven't used similar methods as that of the 19th century. The first satellite temperatures weren't taken until the early 90s for instance, long after we already had an idea that global warming was taking place.

There are some nice graphs in the paper linked below.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_ ... ethods.pdf

Again, I don't have to prove anything, just like you haven't proven anything either. Analyzing the same data collected from two entirely different sources without accounting for the margin of error is intellectually and scientifically dishonest. Plain and simple.

And you continue to misunderstand the science and its kind of shocking because I corrected you before and you still don't correct your mistakes. Pumping more greenhouses gases in the atmosphere will not bring us back into balance. Pumping less in the atmosphere than what we are already doing will decrease the acceleration. It's about accelerating emissions and thus warming. The fact that I have to explain that over and over again, while you fail to comprende, is quite telling on your part.

Seriously?

I'm not sure if you're trying to avoid answering the question because I don't think you are a dumb as you acting, but I'll try to rephrase it again...

You claim that humans are emitting too much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and causing AGW. The simple question is, how much is too much? There has got to be a balance there. I'll put it in alarmist terms. How big can our "carbon footprint" be before it damages the earth's climate?

[Ibanez]

Why aren't we discussing Cow Farts? Am I the ONLY person that cares?

JSO cares. But did the cow create the fart? Or was it the other way around? Without a grad level stat student and a text book you ca'nt be sure. At the minimum you need a self important jackass.

it was on a flyer.

Seriously, deforestation and the increasing bovine population emitting methane is a serious concern.

[JohnStOnge]

Even though we have the technology to know what our atmosphere's composition is, what emissions happen yearly, and test how those gases interact with each other, and also can test what gases are coming in from space? Come on man. Get real

So basically you're conceding that there is absolutely nothing that will convince you that AGW is happening other than direct experimentation.

I actually personally believe that the temperature distribution of our lower atmosphere is higher than it would be without anthropogenic activity. But, at the same time, I understand that inferring a cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activity and any effect on the climate based on statistical data would require a controlled experiment that can't be conducted. There is a limit to the level of certainty that can be achieved. And it's also important to understand that the uncertainty goes past the point of declaring cause and effect to understanding the cause and effect relationship and all the interactions associated with well enough to say that if humankind does X then Y ... or at least Y within some reasonably certain specified range...will happen.

Again: The IPCC itself concedes that unequivocal attribution of cause and effect would required controlled experiments that are not possible. I would think that would be sufficient to convince you that I am not making the referenced principle up.

Again, though I think one can tell they're chomping at the bit to declare absolute certainty.

[JohnStOnge]

f I open the window and I see water coming down, I know it's raining. I don't need some jackass quoting a textbook telling me so.

Good for you and your ability to quote the gruaduate level stat work of others, I'm not impressed, but good for you just the same. Keep telling us how great you are, maybe someone is impressed.

The reason I reference the graduate level stat course textbook is that I do not ask people to take my word for it. If I was trying to convince you of how great I am, I'd expect you to just believe me because I'm so great. Anyway I referenced what I think should be a credible source listing experimentation as a step in the scientific method and I referenced a statistics text indicating that cause and effect can't be inferred without a controlled experiment with the intent of showing that it's not just something I'm saying. Not something you have to take my word about.

But the rain thing is interesting. I actually thought about that just last night. I think we understand what causes rain even though we don't have direct experiments with the atmosphere in which we create the conditions we expect to lead to rain then cause rain. So it's a good argument.

As I've written in other threads there are situations in which we don't need a controlled experiment to demonstrate cause and effect. If we see an 18 wheeler hit a dog we don't need a controlled experiment to conclude that getting hit by the 18 wheeler caused the dog to die. Sometimes it's hard to know where to draw the line. But I think that an important factor is whether or not the inference is being made on the basis of using statistical data such as in designing models then comparing the model outputs to observations of the current day and estimates based on proxy data describing the past. I mean, such models are the cornerstone of this whole thing. It's not like seeing a truck hit a dog at all.

But for now, at least, there is a Statement in the IPCC Physical Science Basis report consistent with what I've been saying.

[youngterrier]

Actually it's been a scientific fact that the world was round since the BC times, using shadows and geometry in Egypt, not to mention the numerous amount of experimentation that happened between then before we circumnavigated the globe showed that the world was spherical. My point was that scientifically speaking, sciences knows or has a good idea about shit before we make such a grand experiment such as launching things into space or circumnavigating the globe.

Hence why I said AGW is nothing but a vague hypothesis. The earth is an open system and there is no possible way to account for the elements being emitted by the earth or the elements entering the earth's atmosphere.

You're going to have to cite that 400 to 500 ppm, you haven't proven temperature increases are bunk, you've only stated. Certainly temperature reading are taken differently, but I highly doubt that they haven't used similar methods as that of the 19th century. The first satellite temperatures weren't taken until the early 90s for instance, long after we already had an idea that global warming was taking place.

There are some nice graphs in the paper linked below.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_ ... ethods.pdf

Again, I don't have to prove anything, just like you haven't proven anything either. Analyzing the same data collected from two entirely different sources without accounting for the margin of error is intellectually and scientifically dishonest. Plain and simple.

And you continue to misunderstand the science and its kind of shocking because I corrected you before and you still don't correct your mistakes. Pumping more greenhouses gases in the atmosphere will not bring us back into balance. Pumping less in the atmosphere than what we are already doing will decrease the acceleration. It's about accelerating emissions and thus warming. The fact that I have to explain that over and over again, while you fail to comprende, is quite telling on your part.

Seriously?

I'm not sure if you're trying to avoid answering the question because I don't think you are a dumb as you acting, but I'll try to rephrase it again...

You claim that humans are emitting too much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and causing AGW. The simple question is, how much is too much? There has got to be a balance there. I'll put it in alarmist terms. How big can our "carbon footprint" be before it damages the earth's climate?

1) Your first conclusion is absolutely false and a showcase of ignorance of how much shit we know when it comes to science or what we are capable to observe
2) that's been debunked and here's a good page elaborating on different scientists commenting and critiquing it:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beck ... s-eli.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as well as this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03 ... cks-dodgy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
3) I've provided a host of evidence, statistics, etc. You've provided faulty and irrelevant statistics

4)Again, you misunderstand <facepalm> there is a natural balance, but guess what? The balance probably naturally favors one or the other (CO2 or oxygen) and I admitted that already! The problem is that we are going to accelerate AGW if we burn carbon emissions, no matter what, but the BIG problem is that if we don't cap our emissions and continue to burn more and more we could accelerate the greenhouse effect and warming. Why I keep saying you "don't get it" is because you clearly haven't been reading what I've been saying about it with the balance, perhaps a natural favoritism, etc. I don't know what the repercussions are of that, how extreme changes would be, etc and I never claim to. I'm not an alarmist, I'm just saying let's call a spade a motherfucking spade and acknowledge what we do know and stop pretending we don't have a problem.

[youngterrier]

Even though we have the technology to know what our atmosphere's composition is, what emissions happen yearly, and test how those gases interact with each other, and also can test what gases are coming in from space? Come on man. Get real

So basically you're conceding that there is absolutely nothing that will convince you that AGW is happening other than direct experimentation.

I actually personally believe that the temperature distribution of our lower atmosphere is higher than it would be without anthropogenic activity. But, at the same time, I understand that inferring a cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activity and any effect on the climate based on statistical data would require a controlled experiment that can't be conducted. There is a limit to the level of certainty that can be achieved. And it's also important to understand that the uncertainty goes past the point of declaring cause and effect to understanding the cause and effect relationship and all the interactions associated with well enough to say that if humankind does X then Y ... or at least Y within some reasonably certain specified range...will happen.

Again: The IPCC itself concedes that unequivocal attribution of cause and effect would required controlled experiments that are not possible. I would think that would be sufficient to convince you that I am not making the referenced principle up.

Again, though I think one can tell they're chomping at the bit to declare absolute certainty.

So if you believe that it's happening based on as high of a certainty we can get without direct experimentation, why are you here?

I mean really, all you're doing is reiterating the same fact over and over again that we all understand. It doesn't add to discussion, it just distracts as a matter of fact.

[Pwns]

A couple things on that

A)I'm brushing over the French vs American thing because it's growing irrelevant (and Americans are more ethnically diverse)

Studies on heart disease incidence are stratified by race, and it's the same thing even if you compare white people in America and in France.

B) I didn't say anything about the heating of the middle ages. I haven't researched it. There is consensus about volcanic activity, it's mainly due to cooling because the smoke blocks out the sun. the carbon emissions aren't as effective or consistent. If you want me to research the warming of the middle ages, I might do it but I don't really care to take the time to at this time. You're citing wikipedia. Come on now.

and C) well unless there is some sort of major global disaster, yes, according to Darwinism they will remain steady. It would take extremely massive increases/decreases in populations to make a footprint. since we're talking about CO2 emissions coming out that would have to be a global disaster, otherwise it's just animals reducing the populations of other animals via predation which leads to an increase in the predatory organisms. You trade prey for predators essentially. Thus it stays relatively steady.

So in other words, we're supposed to believe that our mass breeding of COWS has contributed significantly to the human carbon footprint? What about all of the buffalo that were killed out west in the late nineteenth century? Shouldn't that have reduced CO2 levels significantly? And why can't relatively minor perturbations in the balance of phytoplankton/zooplankton or photosynthetic bacteria/aerobic bacteria cause global warming when their biomass is many many times larger than cattle's?

Edit: I found an answer to your question about the midieval period: The midieval period was a period of higher solar radiation and less volcanic activity (hence less cooling). Like seriously, this was another one-minute google search:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieva ... period.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once again, scientists generally don't agree on how exactly fluctuating volcanic activity can affect climate. Even the same blog you quote says as much.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming- ... canoes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And there is still no real scientific explanation in how ice ages occur. They can't all be explained by volcanoes.

[youngterrier]

A couple things on that

A)I'm brushing over the French vs American thing because it's growing irrelevant (and Americans are more ethnically diverse)

Studies on heart disease incidence are stratified by race, and it's the same thing even if you compare white people in America and in France.

B) I didn't say anything about the heating of the middle ages. I haven't researched it. There is consensus about volcanic activity, it's mainly due to cooling because the smoke blocks out the sun. the carbon emissions aren't as effective or consistent. If you want me to research the warming of the middle ages, I might do it but I don't really care to take the time to at this time. You're citing wikipedia. Come on now.

and C) well unless there is some sort of major global disaster, yes, according to Darwinism they will remain steady. It would take extremely massive increases/decreases in populations to make a footprint. since we're talking about CO2 emissions coming out that would have to be a global disaster, otherwise it's just animals reducing the populations of other animals via predation which leads to an increase in the predatory organisms. You trade prey for predators essentially. Thus it stays relatively steady.

So in other words, we're supposed to believe that our mass breeding of COWS has contributed significantly to the human carbon footprint? What about all of the buffalo that were killed out west in the late nineteenth century? Shouldn't that have reduced CO2 levels significantly? And why can't relatively minor perturbations in the balance of phytoplankton/zooplankton or photosynthetic bacteria/aerobic bacteria cause global warming when their biomass is many many times larger than cattle's?

Edit: I found an answer to your question about the midieval period: The midieval period was a period of higher solar radiation and less volcanic activity (hence less cooling). Like seriously, this was another one-minute google search:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieva ... period.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once again, scientists generally don't agree on how exactly fluctuating volcanic activity can affect climate. Even the same blog you quote says as much.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming- ... canoes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And there is still no real scientific explanation in how ice ages occur. They can't all be explained by volcanoes.

1) fair enough, if we were discussing the difference in French/Americans I would press further, but its an irrelevant conversation that's railroaded off point

2) I never said any of that. You'd have to present some sort of statistical data because I don't know how much more we've bred cows. One could argue that that contributes to warming, and then you have a philosophical argument about whether humans are responsible, which indirectly they kind of are. As for the extinction of certain buffalo, again it depends on statistic, of which I don't know. But what I do know is that that was during the period of the beginning of the industrial revolution.

I have no qualms in admitting that animals are largely responsible for CO2 output, I will say it's true, even though I don't know it as a fact (and if someone presents me with evidence that supports it either way, I will accept that evidence unless better evidence presents itself saying otherwise), but you can't ask me to make professional readings of specific animal populations and their subsequent extinctions leading to changes in the carbon footprint. I have my doubts that one subset of one species of an animal has a significant monopoly or "leading percentage" on carbon emissions.

Further, you're missing the point on the small organisms. There's only ways such organisms can increase in population and thus their carbon footprint 1) outside causes, but only a massive disaster would lead to an exponential or noticeable change and 2) other aerobic agents being the victim of predation; thus the prey is decreased and the predator is increased, counteracting each other. I don't much about cells but you have to present me a certain case or reason why they are increasing, because for the last time saying animals x,y, and z contribute to carbon emissions is a meaningless statement. If you're going to say an increase in emissions on their part is responsible, you have to prove it by showing their increase in population and thus emissions, not just say it could be happening

3)true, but what we do know is that the gases they release are only 1% of the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases per year that humans release per year and smoke cover acts as a cooling effect. The lack of activity in the last 100 or so years doesn't seem to show any correlation with the current trend.

Further, the link you stated doesn't seem to say what you say it said. It basically says there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation outside of a lot of activity contributing to a cooling effect because of the smoke cover and a lot of activity accumulating carbon emissions, but only that could be done over an excruciatingly long amount of time.

Volcanos just don't seem to be having an effect on the current trend right now.

[AZGrizFan]

Dude, your blind-faith belief in the government's altruism regarding AGW research is the very DEFINITION of naive. What are you? 20? You'll grow up one day, get some hair under your arms and your privates, and come to the same realization as most of the sane world. The government is NOT here to help...anybody but THEMSELVES.

Dude, I haven't said anything about government altruism, all I've talked about is the science and the lack of logic from a scientists perspective (and counter to that, the government's perspective) in the concept of a "conspiracy." And if you actually think, you'll see it's bullshit too.
But hey this is how our conversation goes:

You: CONSPIRACY
Me: No, and here's why____________(explanation)
You: NO CONSPIRACY, DONKS HATE US OUAgrjmtr;no

I mean really, you're not even proposing substance, just blind talking points. You clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the purpose of data collecting or experimentation. I can only conclude that you're either extremely stupid and deluded by philosophy or you're trolling. I'm leaning towards the latter.

it's not a "conspiracy", YT. It's just the way government IS. Trust me, if funding the anti-AGW crowd would result in increased government control/growth/spending, they'd be taking THAT slant.

The government is NOT here to help...anybody but THEMSELVES.

unfortunately that right there needs to be the opening line - before any debate on politics even begins...
Let us be be deceived
Committees do not dissolve themselves
Departments do not seek less influence and less funding
Politicians do not demure

[Pwns]

1) fair enough, if we were discussing the difference in French/Americans I would press further, but its an irrelevant conversation that's railroaded off point

2) I never said any of that. You'd have to present some sort of statistical data because I don't know how much more we've bred cows. One could argue that that contributes to warming, and then you have a philosophical argument about whether humans are responsible, which indirectly they kind of are. As for the extinction of certain buffalo, again it depends on statistic, of which I don't know. But what I do know is that that was during the period of the beginning of the industrial revolution.

I have no qualms in admitting that animals are largely responsible for CO2 output, I will say it's true, even though I don't know it as a fact (and if someone presents me with evidence that supports it either way, I will accept that evidence unless better evidence presents itself saying otherwise), but you can't ask me to make professional readings of specific animal populations and their subsequent extinctions leading to changes in the carbon footprint. I have my doubts that one subset of one species of an animal has a significant monopoly or "leading percentage" on carbon emissions.

Further, you're missing the point on the small organisms. There's only ways such organisms can increase in population and thus their carbon footprint 1) outside causes, but only a massive disaster would lead to an exponential or noticeable change and 2) other aerobic agents being the victim of predation; thus the prey is decreased and the predator is increased, counteracting each other. I don't much about cells but you have to present me a certain case or reason why they are increasing, because for the last time saying animals x,y, and z contribute to carbon emissions is a meaningless statement. If you're going to say an increase in emissions on their part is responsible, you have to prove it by showing their increase in population and thus emissions, not just say it could be happening

3)true, but what we do know is that the gases they release are only 1% of the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases per year that humans release per year and smoke cover acts as a cooling effect. The lack of activity in the last 100 or so years doesn't seem to show any correlation with the current trend.

Further, the link you stated doesn't seem to say what you say it said. It basically says there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation outside of a lot of activity contributing to a cooling effect because of the smoke cover and a lot of activity accumulating carbon emissions, but only that could be done over an excruciatingly long amount of time.

Volcanos just don't seem to be having an effect on the current trend right now.

1) The bit about the heart disease science was to demonstrate the fallacy of ascribing causation based on an observational study.

2) On the point of cows, there HAVE been many global warming scientists who think they're a major component of the carbon footprint. And once it's established as the paradigm that cows are a big problem, you'll have studies like the one cited in the article below that maybe they aren't quite as bad. And that gets me back to my central point...all of this is SOFT science because you are dealing with a massively complex system like climate that isn't completely understood especially if respiration of living things can really affect the climate. That fact that cows might take nitrous oxide was overlooked...seems in soft sciences things are always discovered that are overlooked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... oxide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3) Again, you are making the false assumption that we KNOW that only certain things could disrupt the balance of autotrophic to aerobic microorganisms. All I'm telling you is that if you can implicate cows in climate change, why can't perturbations in smaller organisms affect these things, too? For example, scientists think there has been a decline in phytoplankton population that has been going on for the last sixty years or so (see link). Is there any way to know that this is a symptom or a cause of climate change or neither? Not really.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/29-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4) The article I showed says that there are two effects with volcanic emissions...one is that they block heat from the sun and the other is that they produce greenhouse gases... and it's saying that the cooling effects outweigh the warming effects. In other words, once again, climate scientists aren't sure. It's sort of like how higher temperatures lead to more moisture in the air, which also can reflect the suns rays back into space. But they're sure that negative feedback loop can't really slow global warming.

[Baldy]

1) Your first conclusion is absolutely false and a showcase of ignorance of how much shit we know when it comes to science or what we are capable to observe

So you're saying the earth isn't an open system? OK

2) that's been debunked and here's a good page elaborating on different scientists commenting and critiquing it:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beck ... s-eli.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as well as this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03 ... cks-dodgy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course it has been debunked...it doesn't fit the alarmists ideology.
Sorry, but virtually every scientist studying the atmosphere from 1800 through the middle of the 20th century agreed that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were between 400-450 ppm, that's a real consensus.
Unless the scientists of today have a time machine, there is no way to debunk those scientists' observations. Proxy studies are inherently unreliable.

3) I've provided a host of evidence, statistics, etc. You've provided faulty and irrelevant statistics

You have provided the same thing I have...conjecture, nothing more nothing less.

4)Again, you misunderstand <facepalm> there is a natural balance, but guess what? The balance probably naturally favors one or the other (CO2 or oxygen) and I admitted that already! The problem is that we are going to accelerate AGW if we burn carbon emissions, no matter what, but the BIG problem is that if we don't cap our emissions and continue to burn more and more we could accelerate the greenhouse effect and warming. Why I keep saying you "don't get it" is because you clearly haven't been reading what I've been saying about it with the balance, perhaps a natural favoritism, etc. I don't know what the repercussions are of that, how extreme changes would be, etc and I never claim to. I'm not an alarmist, I'm just saying let's call a spade a motherfucking spade and acknowledge what we do know and stop pretending we don't have a problem.

Sure, you're not an alarmist...you just regurgitate their talking points.

I'm all for calling a spade a spade, also. The problem is, scientifically, we don't know if we're holding the ace of spades or a Joker.

[youngterrier]

1) fair enough, if we were discussing the difference in French/Americans I would press further, but its an irrelevant conversation that's railroaded off point

2) I never said any of that. You'd have to present some sort of statistical data because I don't know how much more we've bred cows. One could argue that that contributes to warming, and then you have a philosophical argument about whether humans are responsible, which indirectly they kind of are. As for the extinction of certain buffalo, again it depends on statistic, of which I don't know. But what I do know is that that was during the period of the beginning of the industrial revolution.

I have no qualms in admitting that animals are largely responsible for CO2 output, I will say it's true, even though I don't know it as a fact (and if someone presents me with evidence that supports it either way, I will accept that evidence unless better evidence presents itself saying otherwise), but you can't ask me to make professional readings of specific animal populations and their subsequent extinctions leading to changes in the carbon footprint. I have my doubts that one subset of one species of an animal has a significant monopoly or "leading percentage" on carbon emissions.

Further, you're missing the point on the small organisms. There's only ways such organisms can increase in population and thus their carbon footprint 1) outside causes, but only a massive disaster would lead to an exponential or noticeable change and 2) other aerobic agents being the victim of predation; thus the prey is decreased and the predator is increased, counteracting each other. I don't much about cells but you have to present me a certain case or reason why they are increasing, because for the last time saying animals x,y, and z contribute to carbon emissions is a meaningless statement. If you're going to say an increase in emissions on their part is responsible, you have to prove it by showing their increase in population and thus emissions, not just say it could be happening

3)true, but what we do know is that the gases they release are only 1% of the carbon emissions and greenhouse gases per year that humans release per year and smoke cover acts as a cooling effect. The lack of activity in the last 100 or so years doesn't seem to show any correlation with the current trend.

Further, the link you stated doesn't seem to say what you say it said. It basically says there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation outside of a lot of activity contributing to a cooling effect because of the smoke cover and a lot of activity accumulating carbon emissions, but only that could be done over an excruciatingly long amount of time.

Volcanos just don't seem to be having an effect on the current trend right now.

1) The bit about the heart disease science was to demonstrate the fallacy of ascribing causation based on an observational study.

2) On the point of cows, there HAVE been many global warming scientists who think they're a major component of the carbon footprint. And once it's established as the paradigm that cows are a big problem, you'll have studies like the one cited in the article below that maybe they aren't quite as bad. And that gets me back to my central point...all of this is SOFT science because you are dealing with a massively complex system like climate that isn't completely understood especially if respiration of living things can really affect the climate. That fact that cows might take nitrous oxide was overlooked...seems in soft sciences things are always discovered that are overlooked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... oxide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3) Again, you are making the false assumption that we KNOW that only certain things could disrupt the balance of autotrophic to aerobic microorganisms. All I'm telling you is that if you can implicate cows in climate change, why can't perturbations in smaller organisms affect these things, too? For example, scientists think there has been a decline in phytoplankton population that has been going on for the last sixty years or so (see link). Is there any way to know that this is a symptom or a cause of climate change or neither? Not really.

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/29-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4) The article I showed says that there are two effects with volcanic emissions...one is that they block heat from the sun and the other is that they produce greenhouse gases... and it's saying that the cooling effects outweigh the warming effects. In other words, once again, climate scientists aren't sure. It's sort of like how higher temperatures lead to more moisture in the air, which also can reflect the suns rays back into space. But they're sure that negative feedback loop can't really slow global warming.

1) our understanding of basic physics>out understanding of complex biology. We can tell you the age of the universe, but not the cure for cancer....

2)I can get on-board with the concept of it being "soft science" as technically, most physics is soft science, but that doesn't mean its wrong science. The thing with science or "soft science" as it were, is that if facts are presented that invalidate a conclusion, we change our conclusions. It's like phylogeny in biology, that's technically soft science, but is it wrong? most certainly not! It's one of the major components of evolution. That isn't the case with AGW, as there hasn't been evidence invalidating what we do know so far, and in terms of "level of certainty" it's probably on the same level. Either way, it doesn't invalidate the position that more carbon in the atmosphere=more trapped heat or that humans are speeding it up by burning carbon

3)Actually I've read up on that before, it has something to do with CFC's (which is an entirely different discussion all together). Regardless of the cause, we know the effects that that would predict, being a reduction in CO2, but we don't see that do we? The decline of microscopic organisms such as plankton on a massive level would actually reduce the amount of carbon, the amount of carbon is increasing.

4)No....you made somewhat of a logic leap here. It gives us two effects, and you think because they are different that they "aren't quite sure" you're reading into that something that isn't there. It does more cooling than carbon emissions are really small and volcanic activity is random and inconsistent, whereas the smoking effect has direct consequences that can effect temperature (but for upper and higher limits of time, I can't say, because I haven't looked up the extent of it)

[youngterrier]

1) Your first conclusion is absolutely false and a showcase of ignorance of how much shit we know when it comes to science or what we are capable to observe

So you're saying the earth isn't an open system? OK

2) that's been debunked and here's a good page elaborating on different scientists commenting and critiquing it:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beck ... s-eli.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as well as this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03 ... cks-dodgy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course it has been debunked...it doesn't fit the alarmists ideology.
Sorry, but virtually every scientist studying the atmosphere from 1800 through the middle of the 20th century agreed that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were between 400-450 ppm, that's a real consensus.
Unless the scientists of today have a time machine, there is no way to debunk those scientists' observations. Proxy studies are inherently unreliable.

3) I've provided a host of evidence, statistics, etc. You've provided faulty and irrelevant statistics

You have provided the same thing I have...conjecture, nothing more nothing less.

4)Again, you misunderstand <facepalm> there is a natural balance, but guess what? The balance probably naturally favors one or the other (CO2 or oxygen) and I admitted that already! The problem is that we are going to accelerate AGW if we burn carbon emissions, no matter what, but the BIG problem is that if we don't cap our emissions and continue to burn more and more we could accelerate the greenhouse effect and warming. Why I keep saying you "don't get it" is because you clearly haven't been reading what I've been saying about it with the balance, perhaps a natural favoritism, etc. I don't know what the repercussions are of that, how extreme changes would be, etc and I never claim to. I'm not an alarmist, I'm just saying let's call a spade a motherfucking spade and acknowledge what we do know and stop pretending we don't have a problem.

Sure, you're not an alarmist...you just regurgitate their talking points.

I'm all for calling a spade a spade, also. The problem is, scientifically, we don't know if we're holding the ace of spades or a Joker.

Do you know what the definition of an open system is? It's not like we're pelted with an infinite amount of molecules every day that significantly changes the composition of the atmosphere. It just doesn't work that way. We get pelted by asteroids, etc, but that's not the same as having gases come in and out daily or yearly, especially since we're not living in a gas cloud or orbiting jupiter. You quoted JSO there so it's apparent that you're not actually doing your own research, you're just stumbling along.

Do you even read any of the debunking? Here are some more direct explanatory failures with his testing:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/foun ... -been.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I mean really, there's a library of debunking for that.

He's been debunked, and there's a reason this isn't circulated as much....because it's bunk. You think the power of scientific censorship is so thorough, yet they can't keep the ignorant masses off of the hands of the data that invalidates them? come on now.

I've listed facts over and over again, and I'll gladly continue to do so...you can keep posting debunk and fraud numbers that missed the point, it's not hard to rebut.

I'm an alarmist for using science? If I was an alarmist I would be screaming the sky is falling with a bunch of apocalyptic predictions about what would happen if we didn't do anything about AGW. I stay away from that dialogue because A) I don't know and B) I don't need to validate the science that shows AGW.

You have no idea what you're talking about and continues to show.