More pseudoscience involving the global warming issue.

reply to post by Essan


Thanks for the link.

As I said before. I was a kid in the 70's and so I was basing my memories of that issue on my kid-like judgment.

I do remember discussing it in elementary school several times, but I had not heard of it since.

reply to post by Essan


Nice link.

Did you see the video I posted earlier in this thread about that too? Good stuff, definitely check out that series if you get a chance.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Thank you for the reply.

I am always grateful when the personal attacks are taken out of the comments.

So once again, thank you.

I understand why you are framing your argument in the manner in which you are.

You are correct in your statement that this is not a scientific article, but it is a rag referencing a scientific article.

I should have been more clear in my OP. Thank you for pointing out my error; however,

My problem is the overall theme of how global warming is presented by the media and established scientists, and this article is a microscopic version of the macroscopic problem.

I am in no way trying to say that human behavior has a negligible effect on global climate.
As I said previously, I think that water pollution is paramount to CO2 in terms of what should be our focus.

The idea of CO2 being the sole cause of global temperature change does not have valid research to back it up.

Just as I pointed to in the article, the research uses correlations that show temperature increases in isolated incidents, as well as the lack of evidence supporting other causes to establish causality for their hypothesis, and that is not proper science.

As far as the increase in global temperatures, if I am not mistaken, the earth recently began a cooling trend.

And once again, from my understanding, if one was to look at a graph of global temperature change over the past 100,000 years instead of the last 1000 years, then it shows that we are not experiencing anything out of the ordinary.

I am doing a search for a graph that will substantiate my previous comment, but it is very difficult to find the global temps graphed over the past 100,000 years.
I am only finding the past 1000, which would fall under the fallacy of scale in research.

I read the article and I did not miss any of the points in your post, but I neither saw them as accurate nor relative to the topic at hand.

The article is in no way scientific, I will give you that, but it is both what the scientists are saying and the overall theme and presentation of the article that I find to be so troubling.

Give me a minute to look for the graphs.

If you could find any to post, then that would be helpful as well.

Like I said, I am not 100% sure about that one, but I would love to know so as to deny ignorance.

reply to post by Josephus23


No problem man. Though I sometimes find myself getting riled up about issues I'm passionate about, I always prefer a largely sane, logical, respectful, and rational dialogue. We are both here to essentially share and seek truth, right? So I'm quite happy to have a civil conversation with you on the matter and I thank you for doing the same. We have more in common, I'm sure, than in conflict.

Also, thank you for admitting any inaccuracies/errors you may have made. I will do the same. It can be quite difficult for people to admit they're wrong when engaged in debate, so I commend you for that. And I don't want to sound like I'm patronizing you, it really is a relief to hear because ultimately I want us both (and anbody else involved in the debate) to get to the bottom of our contentions, agree on the right view or combination of views, and then move forward towards the truth TOGETHER from that point, instead of butting heads constantly and ending on a note of conflict. It can be hard to work with people who disagree with us, because some alarm in one's mind gets set off that says "these are your ideological enemies, draw the battle lines" when we come to this site (or any other) and see so many people who share opposing views. I think it helps that we remind ourselves that if we seek ultimate truth we must be willing to be truly open to others views/facts, patient when their facts dont match up, and willing to change our own beliefs when our own facts dont match up. On the mountain of truth we never climb in vain, right?

I am in no way trying to say that human behavior has a negligible effect on global climate.
As I said previously, I think that water pollution is paramount to CO2 in terms of what should be our focus.

I agree to a large extent, especially when we consider all the pollutants and trash we dump into our salt/fresh-water worldwide. The Pacific Garbage Patch comes to mind, and interestingly enough, so do CO2 emissions. It's quite alarming and interesting learning of the effects of CO2 on our oceans and subsequent acidification which, independent of global warming, is greatly threatening marine life as a direct chemical influence. Here definitely check out this beautiful video on the topic if you have some time:
vimeo.com...

The way I see it (and most scientists and those concerned with global warming), the planet is already reeling from the abuse we've been dealing to it. Ecosystems are fragile and imbalanced, species are going extinct, people are losing cropland, diseases are increasing in certain areas, desertification is becoming a problem, while in other places flooding/coast-loss is, weather is generally becoming more extreme/polarized and this affects both the environment AND humans and even our society's functions. When all this is taken into account and then global warming gets blanketed over everything, it has the potential to greatly upset an ALREADY-imbalanced and precarious environmental situation. It's sort of like... say you're in the wilderness and your friend just tripped and busted his leg up and is suffering from heavy bleeding; we can liken that situation to the totality of our environmental mess. Now imagine as you're trying to take care of him, some kind of predator comes along and threatens your already-imperiled friend's life (and even your own) and presents a problem that can dwarf all prior ones unless it is dispatched with immediately so that you can return to taking care of the initial problems. That crisis-worsening predator can be likened to global warming and subsequent climate change. There's so much drama on the planet nowadays, huh?

The idea of CO2 being the sole cause of global temperature change does not have valid research to back it up.

Just as I pointed to in the article, the research uses correlations that show temperature increases in isolated incidents, as well as the lack of evidence supporting other causes to establish causality for their hypothesis, and that is not proper science.

You're correct, the idea of CO2 being the sole cause of global temp change is inaccurate. And from what I've observed, no serious scientists are making any such claims. In fact, as I've stated, they even admit that recent global warming is not 100% attributable to natural factors, however, their research leads them to the conclusion that the vast majority of recent temp increases have been anthropogenically induced. Now as for using mere correlations in isolated instances... I've lost ya again. I'm not sure quite what you're referring to. If you can point to me any gaps in the actual data that shows the evidence to be weak or too isolated to be broadly applicable, then please do. However, from everything I've researched and learned, the data behind global temp increase has been very broadly sampled from not only a range of data TYPES but also regional sources spanning the globe. I think you're pointing out a very non-existent problem that's actually quite the opposite. But please provide me a source for these gaps!

As far as the increase in global temperatures, if I am not mistaken, the earth recently began a cooling trend.

No offense, but you are mistaken. I'm not sure what data or timespan you're referring to, but the fact is that the last 12 years have seen the 10 HOTTEST years ON RECORD. The past decade was the hottest on record with 2009 being the FIFTH hottest year on record. Not to mention, with a combined El Nino effect, 2010 is already showing the potential for breaking the record for THE hottest year on record. Trust me when I say, the warming not only hasn't stopped, it is accelerating and recent research shows that even calculations from a few years ago may be conservative in predicting temperature rises and subsequent environmental effects.


...Continued-->

reply to post by Josephus23


...Continued...

And once again, from my understanding, if one was to look at a graph of global temperature change over the past 100,000 years instead of the last 1000 years, then it shows that we are not experiencing anything out of the ordinary.

I am doing a search for a graph that will substantiate my previous comment, but it is very difficult to find the global temps graphed over the past 100,000 years.
I am only finding the past 1000, which would fall under the fallacy of scale in research.

Here are a few links/graphs I found on the temperature/CO2 record going back to around 400,000 years ago:

www.usgcrp.gov...
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

And to pre-empt any notions of temperature leading carbon (aka carbon lagging temperature):

www.nature.com...
www.youtube.com...

The article is in no way scientific, I will give you that, but it is both what the scientists are saying and the overall theme and presentation of the article that I find to be so troubling.

I wouldn't say it is in NO way scientific, it seems like a fairly standard news article to me and it quotes respected scientists involved with high-level research. But yes of course, as far as demonstrating in-depth data, it is definitely not a thorough scientific article. So what about what the scientists are saying is so troubling? I mean... in order to interface with media and the public they must speak in brief and more laymans terms. This is acceptable because there's no sensible way the scientists could cover their findings in totality within short snippets of time. Yes, you essentially have to take their word on it, but I think it's safe to say they aren't lying, both because there's no strong reason/precedent for it and because the data is there to analyze if we are so inclined.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


This is great.

These are great links and I am very stoked to dig in.

And honestly, I think that we see more eye to eye than we differ.

I am a major proponent of sustainability, and I personally rode a bike for 9 years of my adult life out of choice and respect for the environment, but I think that we are now getting to the core of the issue at hand, and I am very glad that someone as knowledgeable as yourself has responded.

We, without a doubt, need to be mindful about several issues involved in the climate debate.

1) overpopulation.
2) meat consumption for protein.
3) generated industrial waste.

So... I will stick with these 3 for a reason, because while they might appear mutually exclusive, they can be tied together with the carbon emissions debate.

We have a multitude of problems that are facing us a civilization, and these problems have us at a precipice where we will have to collectively voice our vision for the next 100 plus years or we will destroy ourselves.
I agree with all of that.
And I think that the idea of carbon emissions is being used to mobilize people to do these things.

And that is where I have an issue.

If the entire carbon market were not set up like a radical free market casino, then I would also be much less suspect.
But as you agreed with me, CO2 has not been shown to solely be the causal mechanism for global climate change.

And with this set up as a carbon trading market, the same radical free market principles of Friedman economics would be put into motion.
And when that happens, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Add that onto the fact that the tax is a slippery slope.
All respiration in all animals emits CO2.

This is a problem any way you slice it, and applying the radical free market principles of Milton Friedman to any situation has proven historically ineffective and very bad for the people at the bottom...

But really, really good for the people at the top.

And the people at the top (via international corporations) are infinitely more culpable for the destruction of the planet than the plebs.

I will look over these links and the respond to the 3 points up yonder one by one.

Feel free to beat me to the punch.

The tone actually has me stoked about this thread.

reply to post by Josephus23


haha, dude.... I totally agree with you on all that. I too am afraid that the green movement will be sucked up and distorted yet again within the mechanism of top-down capitalist markets.

I too see carbon credits and cap & trade as soft-pedaling industry-friendly giveaways that don't do much of anything to SYSTEMICALLY halt and reverse our severely unsustainable culture.

And to think of all the advanced technology, infrastructure, and lifestyles that have been suppressed via the singular, profit/expansion-driven machine of our civilization things could be so much better than they are. Like you said, we MUST craft a sound and sustainable vision for the coming century, now is the time (more than any other time in human history) for the current generation to decide what kind of future we want. I always tell people, radical change is coming within this century, but we collectively have a choice where that change will lead. And apathy is certain death, so is continuing on (like the definition of an idiot) with the same system thinking things will change, or that some miracle science/god/extraterrestrial will save us in the knick of time. But they very likely wont... and we face a potential Mad Max world (which third world peoples are ALREADY LIVING!). The knowledge is here on how to change the roots of our society for the better, now we must put the pieces together and DO IT OURSELVES.

I so want this world to get better, and I don't want the potential of these moments in history to be squandered. This is why we MUST resist industry's greenwashing of themselves and their continued raping of the environment, of our wallets, and of our freedom/integrity in so many ways.

Actually here are a couple very relevant links on how industry has purposely manipulated the scientific discussion on global warming into a political debate, dividing the populace deceptively when we should be united AT LEAST on this cause. The blatant globalist/corporatist fascism is disgusting in our country, and it oppresses people all over the world causing blowback against us. We must stop the madness for ourselves, the rest of the world, and the environment.

Here are those links!

www.ucsusa.org...
www.greenpeace.org...
www.sourcewatch.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.pbs.org...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


This is so classic.

We should like rename this thread something like....

"Can't we all just get along?"

Yeah. This is great stuff.

I will get back to you on it.

Definitely gonna friend you.

reply to post by Josephus23


Haha, I was thinkin the same thing as I typed out one of my last responses. In a time like this, of such division, our minds seem to need deeper reminders of why we should all just get along.

Likewise on the friending. I added ya.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Haha, I was thinkin the same thing as I typed out one of my last responses. In a time like this, of such division, our minds seem to need deeper reminders of why we should all just get along.

Likewise on the friending. I added ya.

Sweet man.

I took a break because I was in a debate with someone and it got personal and so I just took myself out of the thread, and out of ATS consequently for a minute.

He came to my profile and started insulting me in my comments section.
So, I figured rather than stoop to his impetuous and misguided, sanctimonious behavior, I would take my chance on the system, and I notified the mods. I notified one mod in particular because we appear to be so ADAMANTLY opposed in basic opinion.
I never heard back from him, but the dude did cease.

So that is good.

The reason that I say this is because if anyone else actually reads this thread, then the intensity is ubiquitous, but it is totally possible to actually listen while being intense, and I hope that someone reads it and sees that while even the behaviors and motives of two might be nearly similar if not exact, poor communication can create problems just as bad, if not worse, than simply agreeing to disagree.
Because then we at least understand why we disagree.
And we don't just comment for the adrenaline rush.

We should always do our best. We should most always be impeccable with our word as we make no assumptions, and above all, never, never ever take anything personally, and do this while always always listening impartially....
Because, as you can new see if you were to have grokked this thread, I obviously learn when I do that very same thing.
(That is some gnostic , or druid, or both, or neither, I don't remember, but it is some olden saying. I think?)

Most of you are probably not too different from me, but only I can imagine.

Cheers.

I've heard more people (not on tv- just friends, family, teachers, other average people in public, etc) argue against global warming than for it. I'm sick of people on here going on about how everybody else is being fooled by the mainstream media (besides themselves- they're the enlightened few, of course). Maybe its just my area... which I don't think it is... but it seems to me that Fox's whole anti-global warming campaign has been pushed much more than anthropogenic global warming by the "main stream media". And another pet peeve- who the heck cares if its called "Climate Change" or "Global warming"? To me, one doesn't seem better or worse than the other.

And the "global cooling" thing of the seventies came from scientists studying the Earth's cycles. We should be in a cooling cycle, but global temperatures are actually increasing slightly.

Also, I'm pretty sure no scientist thinks that CO2 is the SOLE factor in global warming. But it is very much a significant contributor to global warming... and the only one that humans can control. Obviously more CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the Earth to be warmer; in the Pennsylvanian Era (when there were immense amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere) the Earth was tropical, and we get our fuels from the fossilized plants that grew during that era. We're releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that should be underground. And I don't feel like hearing the "CO2 is good for plants. The plants will use it" argument, because I'm not sure where those plants are going to grow considering our population is growing exponentially, rain forests are being cut down, etc.

Nobody is ever going to get a "smoking gun" in science that proves causation with metaphysical certainty. In areas like Environmental Science, where it is nearly impossible to conduct a laboratory experiment which exactly models the earth, all scientists can rely on is correlation.

This is not to say that relying on strong correlations is junk science. Scientist rely on correlations all the time to prove theories.

For example, drug makers rely on correlations to determine whether their experimental drugs are safe and effective. You can never show an experimental drug "caused" sick patients to get better. All you can show is a statistical correlation between sick patients taking the drug and getting better.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Nobody is ever going to get a "smoking gun" in science that proves causation with metaphysical certainty. In areas like Environmental Science, where it is nearly impossible to conduct a laboratory experiment which exactly models the earth, all scientists can rely on is correlation.

This is not to say that relying on strong correlations is junk science. Scientist rely on correlations all the time to prove theories.

For example, drug makers rely on correlations to determine whether their experimental drugs are safe and effective. You can never show an experimental drug "caused" sick patients to get better. All you can show is a statistical correlation between sick patients taking the drug and getting better.

You just make an excellent point, which summed up what was my intention of starting the thread; however, my delivery failed horribly where yours was more successful.

Science is not in the business of being right.

It is in the business of refining to the most appropriate position, but it will always be in the process of refining.

No approach is ever the "most appropriate".
Even cosmological constants like gravity could be subject to different forces in environments yet unknown to us.
(I know that was tangential, but it has a point)

Humans are having a detrimental effect on the atmosphere.
Period.

But using correlations to establish a CAUSE is pseudoscience.

And that is what big business is doing with the CO2 issue.

The same people who are the MOST culpable are also the same individuals who are trying to solve the problem by both setting up and running the "carbon cap and trade casino".

And the house always wins. ALWAYS.

Btw...

Science does use correlations to validate the efficacy of drugs, but believe me...

On several occasions this has caused them to screw up BIG TIME.

See DDT.

Or thalidomide.

As a matter of fact, let's look at anti-depressants and what a load of poo, jedi-mind trick these things are.

Read this refereed and peer-reviewed article on the baloney nature of anti-depressants, whose efficacy is due to correlations only by the way.

Link to article.

ATTN MODS: I am working on a thread based on the above link, but it is taking me a while because of the in depth nature of the link. Please don't let anyone steal my idea, and if someone has already posted a thread on it, then I will refrain and congratulate them.

If you don't like reading like real science articles, then the guy wrote a book about it and you can order it here.

Please don't think that I am attacking you pinky.
I starred you and I think that your comment was spot on.
I simply wanted to refine upon it with some ideas of my own.

People constantly think that I am trying to talk down to them, but it is just the way that I speak.
So, please don't get offended (that goes for everyone), and if you do then tell me and I will apologize and correct myself.

reply to post by cg9113


Like I said to pinky and No Hierarchy, you and I see the same.

My OP was worded horribly wrong, but I do not agree with any large corporations calling the shots on how to protect the environment through "cap and trade".

It's set up like a casino and the elite will prosper by pulling the strings behind the casino mechanism.

I despise articles like the one in my OP because they create a stir using correlations, which point to a cause, which is pseudoscience, and they talk about things like cars and electric plants being the problem and they need to be changed.
But they never talk about the real problems.

The 5% of the world who control 90% of the wealth, but yet do NOTHING.

If you really want to solve the CO2 problem, then stop the mass farming of animals for our food supply.

Focus the money we spend on defense on creating virtually limitless energy for so little money.
Buckminster Fuller already showed us how to do it.

ALREADY.

Believe me, we are headed for a crash, but the people who are most at fault are NEVER mentioned in any of these articles.