16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD -

So you think that an electrical engineer is a better person to turn to for information on climate than a biologist, for instance?

Interesting.

I think they are both equally qualified, which is why it is so amusing that you insist that biologists are some type of experts in a field they haven't studied.

 

[Saigon]

Boss -

Yes, volcanoes erupt from time to time. No, they are not the primary driver of climate change.

The CO2 levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years or so,

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So you think that an electrical engineer is a better person to turn to for information on climate than a biologist, for instance?

Interesting.

I think they are both equally qualified, which is why it is so amusing that you insist that biologists are some type of experts in a field they haven't studied.

I don't, obviously.

I think they are experts in biology, and any child can tell you why andhow biology is essential to understanding climate change.

As is so often the case here, you are arguing a position you know to be false.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

If we are talking about climate going back 10,000 years almost as little sense as using the same time span to discuss the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. If we go back further. like 40 times as far, we see that CO2 is cyclic, and has actually been higher than it is now quite a few times.

Not cycles - but known to change.

CO2 levels do not rise and fall each day or year or century because the cycle tells them to -they rise or fall as the result of a precise and determinable cause. In most historical cases, we know the cause and it can be proven beyond any doubt.

It staggers the mind that the earth could experience unprecedented volcanic activity, and you would attirubte rising CO2 levels to a natural cycle.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Missourian -

But, the fact the climate has changed without humans intervention in the past bolsters the argument that climate is changing in the present without human intervention.

Not in the slightest - although it's an understandable assumption.

Nature does change of its own accord. It changes because something causes it do so.

The CO2 we realise into the atmosphere is one cause, but it is not the only cause that we know of.

Going back into distant history we know that massive volcanic activity has caused changes in climate. Likewise bursts of solar activity can influence climate.

The thing is - these are things are know about, things we can chart, which means we also know when they are NOT occuring.

In the 20th century, we can rule out things like massive volcanic activity; while at the same time we can measure the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Have you ever heard of a man named Guy Callendar? You should have, especially if you want to talk about climate change.

In 1938 he predicted that temperature would increase logarithmically as CO2 increased linearly. He did this by using existing data to look back and project the actual trends forward. This resulted in the absurd prediction that doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from 300ppm to 6000ppm would result in an increase in temperature of 1.7 Celsius.

Strangely enough, his work fits the current conditions much better than the more complicated computer models being used today.

Don't worry though, those biologists surely know more than an engineer from the 20th century.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Missourian -

If you'd rather believe blog surveys of their members than those conducted by independent polling organisations, go right ahead.

I have no idea why you would, though, especially when you don't buy the result any more than I do.

I posted a peer review poll of actual scientists, all you have is the "official" statements of the press agents of a few organizations.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

Actually, you posted a poll which showed that 24% of scientists and ENGINEERS do not believe man influences climate.

Oddly enough - the poll established almost the opposite of what you claimed it showed.

I wonder why. Had you actually read the article yourself?

 

[Saigon]

all you have is the "official" statements of the press agents of a few organizations.

Actually, they are the official statements of ALL 60 of the worlds 60 leading scientific organisations.

Many of the statements were based on democratic voting amongst members.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Boss -

Yes, volcanoes erupt from time to time. No, they are not the primary driver of climate change.

The CO2 levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years or so,

You do understand that your 100 year chart doesn't actually prove your point, don't you? While my 400,000 year chart actually proves mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SSDD -

So you think that an electrical engineer is a better person to turn to for information on climate than a biologist, for instance?

Interesting.

I think they are both equally qualified, which is why it is so amusing that you insist that biologists are some type of experts in a field they haven't studied.

I don't, obviously.

I think they are experts in biology, and any child can tell you why andhow biology is essential to understanding climate change.

As is so often the case here, you are arguing a position you know to be false.

Biology is fundamental to understanding climate change? Climate change is something that happens to the entire planet, biology is something that is on the planet. Climate change is the result of the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and the ocean, biology has nothing to do with fluid dynamics.

Personally, if I wanted to know about climate change I would talk to a meteorologist, not a biologist.

 

[flacaltenn]

all you have is the "official" statements of the press agents of a few organizations.

Actually, they are the official statements of ALL 60 of the worlds 60 leading scientific organisations.

Many of the statements were based on democratic voting amongst members.

Absolute BullCrap.. Membership of those Professional orgs don't vote on every press release. MY organizations do crap like that constantly and they've NEVER polled the membership..

It's just like the rigged IPCC Executive Statements. DOZENS of lead scientists lodged protests against conclusions in the front pages of those political reports that didn't match the science. The IPCC finally ADMITTED that NON-SCIENCE members of the PANEL had too much input into the wording that the world media and decision makers used from those products.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

Biology is fundamental to understanding climate change?

Yes, obviously.

Do you really need me to explain why?

Try this:

Climate has far reaching impacts on biological systems. Survival and reproduction depend on how well adapted individuals are to local climate patterns. Climate change can disrupt the match between organisms and their local environment, reducing survival and reproduction and causing subsequent impacts on populations or species’ distributions across geographic regions. Climate change may benefit some species and cause extinction for others. Cumulatively, it will alter biological communities and the functioning of ecosystems. The Earth is already experiencing sufficient climate change to affect biological systems; well-documented changes in plant and animal populations are related to recent climate change. Predicting future biological impacts of climate change remains a formidable challenge for science.

http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0020480.html

Think about coral reefs. Think about species that rely on Arctic Ice. Think about species that live near glaciers.

Could understanding changes in animal numers & behaviour help us understand what is happening to their ecosystem?

Personally, if I wanted to know about climate change I would talk to a meteorologist, not a biologist.

It's not an either/or question.

Those of us who did and do want to know, have spoken to or researched climatology, meteorology possibly, physics and biology.

Flac -

Membership of those Professional orgs don't vote on every press release.

Of course not. But some organisations have polled this topic before releasing statements, rather than risk a mass walk-out. I was told this by a Prof. Physics, anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

If we are talking about climate going back 10,000 years almost as little sense as using the same time span to discuss the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. If we go back further. like 40 times as far, we see that CO2 is cyclic, and has actually been higher than it is now quite a few times.

Not cycles - but known to change.

CO2 levels do not rise and fall each day or year or century because the cycle tells them to -they rise or fall as the result of a precise and determinable cause. In most historical cases, we know the cause and it can be proven beyond any doubt.

It staggers the mind that the earth could experience unprecedented volcanic activity, and you would attirubte rising CO2 levels to a natural cycle.

I suppose you think that makes sense.

One problem, where did I say anything tells CO2 to go up an down? All I did was point out that the existing data shows that there are climate cycles. Some scientists have even made the absurd argument that a large portion of North America was covered by an ocean in the past, and that it was later covered by ice.

That is absurd, of course, because we must all bow down to your superior knowledge in this, and admit that the only way climate change occurs is if you understand it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

Actually, you posted a poll which showed that 24% of scientists and ENGINEERS do not believe man influences climate.

Oddly enough - the poll established almost the opposite of what you claimed it showed.

I wonder why. Had you actually read the article yourself?

What did I claim? Let's go back and look.

By they way, it may, or may not, be true that every major scientific organization has confirmed the role of man in climate change, but it seems that most scientists actually disagree with said organizations.

Gee, it seems I claimed that scientists are more skeptical than you claim. Your claim was that every major scientific organization organization unconditionally supports anthropomorphic global warming. I claimed that most scientists do not agree with that statement.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Want to try again, or do you want to keep arguing with the guy in your head?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

all you have is the "official" statements of the press agents of a few organizations.

Actually, they are the official statements of ALL 60 of the worlds 60 leading scientific organisations.

Many of the statements were based on democratic voting amongst members.

And I have actual scientists.

Keep going though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

Biology is fundamental to understanding climate change?

Yes, obviously.

Do you really need me to explain why?

Try this:

Climate has far reaching impacts on biological systems. Survival and reproduction depend on how well adapted individuals are to local climate patterns. Climate change can disrupt the match between organisms and their local environment, reducing survival and reproduction and causing subsequent impacts on populations or species’ distributions across geographic regions. Climate change may benefit some species and cause extinction for others. Cumulatively, it will alter biological communities and the functioning of ecosystems. The Earth is already experiencing sufficient climate change to affect biological systems; well-documented changes in plant and animal populations are related to recent climate change. Predicting future biological impacts of climate change remains a formidable challenge for science.

Biological Impacts of Climate Change

Think about coral reefs. Think about species that rely on Arctic Ice. Think about species that live near glaciers.

Could understanding changes in animal numers & behaviour help us understand what is happening to their ecosystem?

Personally, if I wanted to know about climate change I would talk to a meteorologist, not a biologist.

It's not an either/or question.

Those of us who did and do want to know, have spoken to or researched climatology, meteorology possibly, physics and biology.

Flac -

Membership of those Professional orgs don't vote on every press release.

Of course not. But some organisations have polled this topic before releasing statements, rather than risk a mass walk-out. I was told this by a Prof. Physics, anyway.

Biologist can tell me that species are evolving, and that some are dying off. Great, but I am pretty sure Darwin said the same thing over 150 years ago, nice of them to agree with him.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

And you wonder why I often ignore your posts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

And you wonder why I often ignore your posts?

I know why you ignore my posts, thinking gives you a headache.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

It's because you so obviously don't believe what you post yourself.

Any eleven-year-old child could explain to you why biology is essential to our understanding of climate, and yet here you are demanding explanations and then ignoring them when they are provided.

Why not try debating the topic as if you were an adult?

 

[Boss]

The question that should be asked is

1.Is solar or wind good?
2. Is cleaning up coal good?
3. Can increasing fuel standards that allow for more miles per gallon, good?

If you agree with all...I don't understand how the general policies are that extreme.

Matthew, what do any of these three things being "good" or "extreme" have to do with man's contributions to changing climate? I mean, I guess if you save a few dollars on gas, you can send a check to Al Gore or some other left-wing wacko fundamentalist group, and that's a good thing in your mind? Maybe cleaning coal makes it less nasty, and then when it burns, it doesn't cause any harm? Perhaps all those windmills spinning, tend to cool things down? Solar panels soak up that deadly sun that would otherwise be heating the planet up? I'm trying to figure out what connection this has to the argument.

But now, okay... for the sake of taking on a moron, I will entertain your questions, even though they have little to do with the argument over man-made global warming.

1. Is solar or wind good? Well it's certainly good if you are a seller of solar panels and windmills. Or, if you work in a factory that makes solar panels or windmills. As far as an alternative energy source, it is not all that efficient or practical in terms of cost. It takes around 25 years for the typical solar panel to pay for itself, which is about the average lifespan of said solar panel, so at best, it is a zero-sum game. On the other hand, nuclear energy far exceeds all other types of energy, nukes solar and wind out of the water, pardon the pun.

2. Is cleaning up coal good? Well, not if you work as a coal miner or own a traditional coal mining company. Not if your factory or industry uses traditional coal. Cleaning up coal costs a lot of money, so it makes the final product much more expensive than it has to be, rendering it less efficient than it already is. Even though it's not the most efficient form of energy, again, paling in comparison to nuclear energy, it is the most abundant resource we have.

3. Can increasing fuel standards that allow for more miles per gallon, good? This is an improper sentence, but I think I know what you are asking, and no... it's not good. If it were good, free market capitalists would do this on their own, without increasing standards. Consumers would demand this, if it were good, there wouldn't be a need for government to mandate it. In fact, capitalism can be applied to all three questions, if they were truly "good" then free market capitalism would have done them already, as this is what capitalists and consumers do.

Now, if we had a magic wand to wave, and could produce solar and wind cheaply, or clean coal without any cost, or increase fuel mileage without any loss of horsepower or greater expense, then maybe they would all be good, and consumers would demand them. But that isn't the reality we live in. That is something which only exists in the mind of a liberal idiot who believes in Utopianism.