For All Those Who Deny Climate Change

But first you need to grow up! Originally Posted by bigtex

You display such a vast amount of maturity yourself.

Seriously, nature works on balance. A really small shift in the oxygen level and everything either just spontaneously burns up or all the larger lifeforms die. So the planet was basically one big jungle with trees that make our trees look like grass and a bunch of big lizards running around, and more oxygen to support that. An asteroid hits, burns up a little of the O2, kills everything on the planet. Then all that potential fuel gets cooked and pressed flatter than a pancake by millions of tons of pressure all of which puts even more potential energy into that stuff, for a few hundred million years.

Then we come along, pump almost all of that go juice out of the ground, burn it in an atmosphere that already no longer has nearly the oxygen level that initially supported all those lizards and balanced out the CO2 they made, and we also populate the entire planet, deplete the seas, deforest the entire planet etc etc. Essentially in the course of maybe a hundred years, not millions. And you think nature just can balance that out somehow?

It's thermodynamics, not magic.

But whatever you believe, the thing about all the historical cycles and stuff? They don't apply because there is no historical precedent in the history of the planet for one species dominating the ecosystem and pumping an entire planet's worth of energy that it took Nature hundreds of millions of years to make in the course of a hundred years.

So whether or not we are causing the current changes, it is not simply a continuing cycle that has been going on forever because that historical shit just doesn't apply anymore.

I am actually working a on getting a project funded that would create a cheaper cleaner energy. This technology will also get rid of our landfills. I do not believe that man is causing any kind of climate change, but we do need to change some things we are doing. Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

That's great Wylde. Seriously. One small piece of advice though. Have a proofreader go over anything you submit in writing. It really could make a difference. No sarcasm intended. Good luck.

That's great Wylde. Seriously. One small piece of advice though. Have a proofreader go over anything you submit in writing. It really could make a difference. No sarcasm intended. Good luck. Originally Posted by Booth

Since I will be one of the developers I will not be submitting anything in writing, but if I have to I will have a personal assistant that will handle that. Smart people hire intelligent workers to do the shit they do not like to do.

Like, er, know what the fuck they're talking about?

But whatever you believe, the thing about all the historical cycles and stuff? They don't apply because there is no historical precedent in the history of the planet for one species dominating the ecosystem and pumping an entire planet's worth of energy that it took Nature hundreds of millions of years to make in the course of a hundred years.

So whether or not we are causing the current changes, it is not simply a continuing cycle that has been going on forever because that historical shit just doesn't apply anymore. Originally Posted by DatManDu

So you just ignore historical data because it doesn't "fit" your hypothesis? I hope you don't do any kind of scientific research.

We had a mini ice age during the middle ages, when we weren't burning all these hydrocarbons, and no one is sure what caused it. To act is if we know exactly what is causing climate change is naive, and possibly reckless, and could have greater consequences.

or, the fact is that weather / climate is cyclical... so what? It comes and goes, always has, always will. Just like species (including Hominids) come and go.. Don't bother to pack a bag, it's a one way trip.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...imate-dispute/

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Yes, the evidence certainly seems crystal clear that we little humans can change the course of the earth, our solar system and the entire universe!

Like, er, know what the fuck they're talking about? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I am pretty sure you have not known what you are talking about for years at this stage of your life....

The climate change debate is just that...a debate.

No one really knows the answers to any of these questions, and scientists who claim otherwise display profound hubris.

I see it. I feel it. I smell it. It quacks. But you know, I've got NO evidence whatsoever of what the fuck it is!

LOL!

I don't know how many of you have a yard full of straw and other kindling, but speaking for myself -- I COULD REALLY GO FOR SOME CLIMATE CHANGE RIGHT ABOUT NOW!

Two measly fucking drops of rain this afternoon. My yard looked as if it had been cock blocked! Pissed!

Anybody else need to build a fucking ark today in the ATX?

Nope, no evidence of climate change at all.

So you just ignore historical data because it doesn't "fit" your hypothesis? I hope you don't do any kind of scientific research.

We had a mini ice age during the middle ages, when we weren't burning all these hydrocarbons, and no one is sure what caused it. To act is if we know exactly what is causing climate change is naive, and possibly reckless, and could have greater consequences. Originally Posted by BigGerman

You hope I don't do scientific research? I'll tell you exactly why your position is a total abuse of any rational scientific method.

What statistics and historical data can tell you is the probability that two sets of measurements belong to the same true population of data. Nothing more and nothing less.

Your position is utterly flawed on not one but two considerations. First of all, you assume that modern trends are a continuation of an ongoing historical cycle, i.e. you are assuming that the data we are measuring now is in fact part of the same population as data from previous historical cycles.

Second you also infer a causation from that assumption - that man is not effecting any climate change. Correlation can never demonstrate causation, it can only demonstrate the probability that two sets of samples do or do not represent the same true population of data.

The first assumption is hopelessly flawed past the point of any real scientific integrity. You cannot simply examine data alone, you must also consider the experimental conditions. The mere presence of a common pattern between current data and historical data, even when a high degree of statistical similarity exists - something I don't think anyone on either side is really able to adequately demonstrate anyway - is not interpretively useful if there are significant known variations in how the data is collected.

I am not "ignoring" historical data as you suggest. What I am saying is there are well known and major elements of the current experimental conditions - modification of the ozone layer, the presence of fluorochlorocarbons are just one aspect - that cannot simply be ignored and that have absolutely no historical precedent. Those factors alone are enough to suggest that there can be little confidence we are sampling from the same population no matter what sort of similarities you may find in the data.

So in addition to making basically a blind and utter leap of faith that the current trends reflect the same population of data as historical figures, you are also using that assumption to say that man is not causing climate change. I don't think you have any real statistical evidence that provide any probability numbers that the data is the same in the first place. But even if you did the second part is simply wrong. You are inferring a causation, or in this case the absence of a causation. Man could in fact be causing significant changes in the climate, some other factor could be causing significant changes that at the time the data was collected were offsetting man's impact. Historical data could never demonstrate that.

Honestly that anyone can think man cannot and is not having an impact on all aspects of the ecosystem, and yes certainly the climate as well, is simply beyond understanding. I don't think the models and theories are necessarily valid. I certainly do not support labeling feel good measures as "green" that are not sustainable and are more destructive of the environment like bio-diesel and ethanol.

But while you may find some disagreement about the impacts etc on the ozone layer I think you will find little dispute that man is capable of effecting a major change on our atmosphere at the highest levels. And when you consider other issues like acid rain etc there is essentially no credible dispute that man can and most certainly does alter the composition of our atmosphere on a planetary scale. To know that we are capable of altering our entire atmosphere, and yet to deny that we can change the climate is beyond any rational thinking and simply an incomprehensible position to take.

Everything has an action and reaction. I am sure you appreciate it takes time and real work to make your money, and that is a resource that needs to be managed wisely or there are real problems. If I were to say look, Obama can piss away all that money like there is no more tomorrow, but you can just make more, one man can't really fuck up something the size of the US economy, you certainly would feel like you know much differently.

But when it comes to the planet all of a sudden we are dealing with magic. Nothing just comes or goes away. The planet has to do real work and it takes a lot of time. But according to you all, 9 billion people can pump out essentially all the petroleum it took Nature hundreds of millions of years of time and work to make. That work was essentially compensation for a single global catastrophic event. But now we can burn it all up in what amounts to the blink of an eye, but Nature can just handle that now. We can't impact the climate, much less trigger a second catastrophic event by having taken all the energy and time Nature had to put into that process and basically shooting it all back out into the same environment in one big wad.

And all because you parrot your corrupt leaders and you despise and dispute anything that Al Gore might ever say. If Al Gore were to make a strong position that the world was round it would be perfectly reasonable to expect a large number of people to suddenly insist that it was in fact flat and that Al Gore was somehow going to profit on all the people who were in danger of sailing off the edge.

You are just as intoxicated on the koolaid, so they like the blue stuff and yours is red. You are most like the people you despise the most - the two sides of the same talking points, but at the end of the day exactly the same.

Well put. Er, well put THAT on a bumper sticker, please!

You said it, DatMan.

It's not about any one piece of evidence - increasing natural disasters, increasing temperature extremes, melting ice caps, crabs in Antarctica, shrinking glaciers, warming oceans, etc - it's about the confluence of all those pieces of evidence in the last 10 years.

Even if you don't think its man-made, and all the trillions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere have no effect, wouldn't it still make sense to prepare for climate change regardless? It's not like we can just be like, "Ah, I'll get to that when Florida is underwater."