Evolution vs. Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Toronado3800]

See: Pascal's wager

I am only superficially familiar with the reference. It has to do with playing percentages maybe in reference to going to church to avoid possibly being damned to hell. Can you explain it to me from your point of view?

Personally I LOVE percentages. I think they drive daily life decisions from deciding what we need to charge for product "A" to if I decide to pull out into traffic or invade Iraq.

Fear of the improbable yet terrible keeps folks from being worse drivers than they are. It keeps them from running their mouth tooo much in a bar where the other guy "might" kick your butt. It makes me be fairly careful when I hold an open burn.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm reading up on the 1st part.

Re-configuring the entire world economy to reduce CO2 as a method to reduce warming is at best ill advised and is also frought with certain disasters and probable unintended consequences that will be worse than anything ever contrived from AGW.

I don't follow this.

My feelings would be:
Climatically, if humans somehow added no CO2 to the atmosphere the climate would regulate itself like it always has.
Politically/economically if humans were forced to not emit CO2 tomorrow certainly there would be hell to pay. If they were forced to emit 50% of current levels in 1 year there would be pretty fair upheaval.

 

[Oddball]

See: Pascal's wager

I am only superficially familiar with the reference. It has to do with playing percentages maybe in reference to going to church to avoid possibly being damned to hell. Can you explain it to me from your point of view?

Personally I LOVE percentages. I think they drive daily life decisions from deciding what we need to charge for product "A" to if I decide to pull out into traffic or invade Iraq.

Fear of the improbable yet terrible keeps folks from being worse drivers than they are. It keeps them from running their mouth tooo much in a bar where the other guy "might" kick your butt. It makes me be fairly careful when I hold an open burn.

If you want to play the percentages, based upon nothing more than your fears, do it with your own life and money. Doing so with the lives and livelihoods of billions of people you don't even know, by physical force if necessary, is the action of a totalitarian tyrant.

 

[Toronado3800]

I do understand your point Dude.

The next thing we can argue is "well, most ppl make it where they're going in India with cruddy system of traffic laws why do we need them". It will just come down to each other pulling up statistics and trying to determine what is a reasonable risk though. In an overly simple way of putting it "maybe we need seatbelts but there is no need to make ppl in cars all wear helmets".

 

[Toronado3800]

Back to CO2 percentages...

There is this article essentially quoting Aradhna Tripati (UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences). It claims

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today,

I also stumbled into this one

Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.

I think its funny he spends his whole page disputing man made CO2's effects then says maybe we should prepare to release it if the cooling trend comes back.

Best I could do on short notice, Gotta go get some work done, lunch is over!

 

[Oddball]

None of which refutes the fact that CO2 concentrations have historically followed upticks in ambient temps, not been the drivers of them.

 

[eagleseven]

Politically/economically if humans were forced to not emit CO2 tomorrow certainly there would be hell to pay.

Considering that you exhale CO2, how long can you hold your breath?

In an enclosed, crowded auditorium, CO2 levels can reach upwards of 10,000 PPM from the audience breathing!

 

[Bern80]

I encourage people to adopt a slighly different perspective when debating global warming in order to determine whether the sky is really falling or not. Many probably noticed the lead headline on Yahoo this morning was that the last decade was the hottest 'ever'. Ever is kind of a strong word. The article becomes slightly more honest by skipping as quickly as possible over the inconvenient 'on record' phrase. This period of time we are living in where we throw out the word 'crisis' like candy for everything needs a healthy does of persepctive. The amount of time man has had to effect the earth's climate is so ifintecimally small relative to geologic time and earth time and climate change patterns that span thousands and tens of thousands of years, it should barely warrant comment.

And is it dear old mother nature we are really trying to protect or are we just looking out for our own selfish interest? Think about it. What are the negatives of a warmer climate. The big one we hear about is rising sea levels. That will certainly be inconvenient for some members of the human race, but I am not sure how it can be considered objectively bad for the Earth. On the upside we should be able to grow a lot more food. Really think hard about that, especially in regards to the northern states. Wrap your head around the concept that temperatures are so inhospitably COLD we can not grow food for half of the year. Consider that more people die per year from freezing to death than from heat. And yet those from the church of Gore scream it's too hot.

We are trying to change the course of climate change under the assumption that we caused it even though this is still debatable even on a purely intuitive level. Most of us accept the greenhouse concept. Similar to a blanket, it traps heat. It is also similar to blanket in that increasing blankets/CO2 is not going to burn you/the planet up. Plenty of science suggests that the excess heat trapped by CO2 has a diminsihing return affect on temp increase. And the amount of CO2 we (humans) put into the air is such an infintecimally small amount of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere that it's basically a rounding error. And yet we insist that we must change the course of climate change because of what some believe we are causing. Should we be trying to do that if we AREN'T causing it? Wouldn't be wrong to stop the climate from changing for convenience sake? That is a question that a couple of true believers on this board refuse to answer.

 

[Si modo]

.... Given that global warming and evolution are denied by the same people, ....

Bullshit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60ºF colder. Because of how they warm our world, these gases are referred to as greenhouse gases.
How much is too much? What is the cause, and what maybe the consequences?
I don't know, but neither do any of you.
Better to keep ones head in the sand, or to be like a tree (or a smart virus? Thanks CFrank, you're always good for a laugh) & hope we evolve so to survive? Or, to adapt and protect an environment we (yep, people) have polluted out of greed and convenience? Me, I support efforts to protect our environment, small and large.

Pure emotionalism.

Because you don't know what effects we are or are not having, good or bad if any, and you don't know what effects good or bad if any our trifling around with the atmosphere will do. What will the earth be LIKE if we are able to reduce CO2 emissions to just under 200ppm as the stated goal says? You really want the very LIFE GIVING gas of everything on the planet reduced that much?

And you don't mind economic slavery and redistribution of wealth on a global scale in the name of "saving the planet" which hasn't been proven is in any danger from man's activities.

You also don't seem to mind science being bastardized and fraud-ridden in order to keep this AGW scaremongering going.

You're making the emotional argument that "pollution is baaaaaad! We gotta saaaave the planet" and no one's EVER argued the opposite! No one's EVER said "pollution is good."

Put your brain in the driver's seat and get your heart in the passenger seat holding the map, where it belongs and wise up to what's going on.

Well I guess you told me (lol). I wonder, do you actually have any friends?
Your response is crumudgeonly emotional and filled with your own bias and contradictions; in your own way you are as silly as is CFrank.

 

[Si modo]

The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60ºF colder. Because of how they warm our world, these gases are referred to as greenhouse gases.
How much is too much? What is the cause, and what maybe the consequences?
I don't know, but neither do any of you.
Better to keep ones head in the sand, or to be like a tree (or a smart virus? Thanks CFrank, you're always good for a laugh) & hope we evolve so to survive? Or, to adapt and protect an environment we (yep, people) have polluted out of greed and convenience? Me, I support efforts to protect our environment, small and large.

Pure emotionalism.

Because you don't know what effects we are or are not having, good or bad if any, and you don't know what effects good or bad if any our trifling around with the atmosphere will do. What will the earth be LIKE if we are able to reduce CO2 emissions to just under 200ppm as the stated goal says? You really want the very LIFE GIVING gas of everything on the planet reduced that much?

And you don't mind economic slavery and redistribution of wealth on a global scale in the name of "saving the planet" which hasn't been proven is in any danger from man's activities.

You also don't seem to mind science being bastardized and fraud-ridden in order to keep this AGW scaremongering going.

You're making the emotional argument that "pollution is baaaaaad! We gotta saaaave the planet" and no one's EVER argued the opposite! No one's EVER said "pollution is good."

Put your brain in the driver's seat and get your heart in the passenger seat holding the map, where it belongs and wise up to what's going on.

Well I guess you told me (lol). I wonder, do you actually have any friends?
Your response is crumudgeonly emotional and filled with your own bias and contradictions; in your own way you are as silly as is CFrank.

Ah, the logic of the you-don't-have-any-friends 'point' on display. Well, I sure am convinced.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pure emotionalism.

Because you don't know what effects we are or are not having, good or bad if any, and you don't know what effects good or bad if any our trifling around with the atmosphere will do. What will the earth be LIKE if we are able to reduce CO2 emissions to just under 200ppm as the stated goal says? You really want the very LIFE GIVING gas of everything on the planet reduced that much?

And you don't mind economic slavery and redistribution of wealth on a global scale in the name of "saving the planet" which hasn't been proven is in any danger from man's activities.

You also don't seem to mind science being bastardized and fraud-ridden in order to keep this AGW scaremongering going.

You're making the emotional argument that "pollution is baaaaaad! We gotta saaaave the planet" and no one's EVER argued the opposite! No one's EVER said "pollution is good."

Put your brain in the driver's seat and get your heart in the passenger seat holding the map, where it belongs and wise up to what's going on.

Well I guess you told me (lol). I wonder, do you actually have any friends?
Your response is crumudgeonly emotional and filled with your own bias and contradictions; in your own way you are as silly as is CFrank.

Ah, the logic of the you-don't-have-any-friends 'point' on display. Well, I sure am convinced.

I simply asked a question; of course there is a 'point' to that question. It will, I'm sure, be ignored. MM does not strike me as someone who is introspective, nor do you.

 

[Si modo]

Well I guess you told me (lol). I wonder, do you actually have any friends?
Your response is crumudgeonly emotional and filled with your own bias and contradictions; in your own way you are as silly as is CFrank.

Ah, the logic of the you-don't-have-any-friends 'point' on display. Well, I sure am convinced.

I simply asked a question; of course there is a 'point' to that question. It will, I'm sure, be ignored. MM does not strike me as someone who is introspective, nor do you.

Oh. Your question was serious? OK. Two word answer (given so many times before in this sort of 'debate', where have you been?) - Pascal's wager.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah, the logic of the you-don't-have-any-friends 'point' on display. Well, I sure am convinced.

I simply asked a question; of course there is a 'point' to that question. It will, I'm sure, be ignored. MM does not strike me as someone who is introspective, nor do you.

Oh. Your question was serious? OK. Two word answer (given so many times before in this sort of 'debate', where have you been?) - Pascal's wager.

I tend to ignore dilettanteism; but, in this case I'll bite but I much prefer Gideon's Paradox.

 

[Si modo]

I simply asked a question; of course there is a 'point' to that question. It will, I'm sure, be ignored. MM does not strike me as someone who is introspective, nor do you.

Oh. Your question was serious? OK. Two word answer (given so many times before in this sort of 'debate', where have you been?) - Pascal's wager.

I tend to ignore dilettanteism; but, in this case I'll bite but I much prefer Gideon's Paradox.

OK. Then you weren't serious when you asked the question. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[code1211]

I'm reading up on the 1st part.

Re-configuring the entire world economy to reduce CO2 as a method to reduce warming is at best ill advised and is also frought with certain disasters and probable unintended consequences that will be worse than anything ever contrived from AGW.

I don't follow this.

My feelings would be:
Climatically, if humans somehow added no CO2 to the atmosphere the climate would regulate itself like it always has.
Politically/economically if humans were forced to not emit CO2 tomorrow certainly there would be hell to pay. If they were forced to emit 50% of current levels in 1 year there would be pretty fair upheaval.

Obviously, the world has regulated its climate already if you mean that warming needs to stop for this regulation to have occurred.

How's that snow storm in L.A. doing this evening?

There has been no warming since 2001. Statiscally, where any climate change is measured, there has been cooling.

But you, again, are equating CO2 increase with warming when there is no proof that this link exists in the real world. When the link is demonstrated, there will be a need for a response. If the link is never proven, no action is justified.

A good place to start in your proof is why there has been cooling since 2001 despite an ongoing increase of CO2. If there is a demonstrable cause-effect link, the given cause should always produce the same effect. No consistancy, no proof. Them's the rules.

Ball's in your court. Let the proof be shown.

 

[Oddball]

I tend to ignore dilettanteism....

Except, of course, for your own.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I tend to ignore dilettanteism....

Except, of course, for your own.

Of course; and of course you, 'dude' (but for the occassional laugh you unintentionally provide).

 

[Old Rocks]

I read this early today, and thought I'd add in that a big difference between Evolution and AGW is a matter of ego.

If you exam relativity, theories on celestial motion, germ theories, or namely any other theory in science you'll find that the theory seeks to understand some underlying physical law. Mankind (Or God) isn't really the focus.

Global Warming theories seem to take a different track. The underlying theme seems to be that after noticing that temperatures were on an up-tick, the early adopters automatically assumed that mankind was the cause. That seems to require a certain amount of....ego... about mankind's power and place on the planet that other theories seem to lack, to their benefit.

I think Mankind does have the power to affect the environment, but the extent that global warming theorists claim smacks of a certain humanistic egotism that sits uncomfortably with me.

I thought that you had more knowledge of science that this. The physics of GHGs were established by Tyndal and Arrnhenius.

 

[Si modo]

I wasn't sure what the point of the thread was? Given that global warming and evolution are denied by the same people, ....

What a crock of shit.