Discussion:
anthropomentric global warming...what 'scientific' argument?
Add Reply
abelard
2017-08-12 18:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
It seems inconceivable to believe that people did not die from smoking related disease during all that time. In fact, some Victorian doctors extolled the virtues of smoking in that it 'cleared congestion from the lungs' Smoking tended to make one cough you see.
Further to that, most deathe of this period came about through infectious diseses like TB. Many worked in dreadful conditions. In mills where fibres floated through the air. In mines where coal and stone dust were suspended in air. Even outside the work environment the air was full of smoke from factory and house chimneys.
Is it any wonder that the lungs became 'congested' (chronic bronchitis)
Death from 'lung congestion' was a prolonged affair as was lung cancer.
Beyond that smoking was a virtually universal habit. Even I can remember when virtually all adult men and a significant number of adult women smoked. A WW2 soldier's field rations contained a packet of 10 Woodbines. Sailors could draw cheap packet of 'blue bands' (Senior Service) from their messes on board or in shore bases.
Such was the awareness of the danger of cigarette smoking in those days.
Such days are now behind us. As the air became cleaner, improvements in health care, increased resort to autopsies, the evidence became more obvious and led to statistical surveys which showed and afterwards reiterated the statistical link between smoking and subsequently, other diseases.
The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
the cost if final..
so what most people didn't know in 1850

the logic is similar and there is plenty of data....

what is not clear is how much the cost may be...and on what time scale

of course the time scale won't effect old fogies...

there are technological ways out but currently the filthy fossil
fuel industry has the money to confuse the masses...just
as the fag industry once managed(in the west)
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
and?
and that is just part of the
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
please sign our partition...but first claim to be 'a scientist'
when you have eliminated all that cannot be the case.........
Yes a belief is a belief but hard science needs a much firmer base than mere belief. It's religions are based on relief.
and if i call your theories 'beliefs'
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
you are being evasive...i gave you an example
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
you have no position...well that's a claim that is out of
accord with your posting behaviour...

i do have a position...see below
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
define 'substantial' and 'significant'
It's religions are based on relief.
are you claiming that 'science' is not a matter of 'belief'?
It's not if it is under pinned by irrefutable evidence and lack of conflictive evidence or alternative hypothesis in which case it becomes an established and verifiable fact.
define 'evidence'
define 'irrefutable'

define 'become and established and verifiable fact'....
even you have already admitted it is happening...

it's about cost/benefits....your potential costs vastly
far less than those of a 20yo...
so you're more concerned about the insurance payments
the 20 years old will often be more concerned about
the risks...

and 80 year old will not see smoking as so great a risk
...or getting increasing porkie...

none of that is a matter of 'conflicting evidence'...it is a matter
of selfish self-interest..
it's not about science any more than it's about science for
gore or lawson
lawson and you and gore are arguing politics...not serious
science...
imv you're not even arguing about beliefs...you're more
engaged in propaganda to get what you individually *want*


there is plentiful evidence that it is occurring...
now it's matter of risk assessments and costs...

and if you guess wrong the young are going to inherit even
more and worse problems...
they will pay....not you...

lomborg argues that road with rationality...

i would pay more but then
1)i am risk averse
2)i habitually think long term...

i actually don't mind a small temperature increase...but..
i'm not a consumerist by nature...so i don't mind a lower
number of plastic chinese toys...or even ciggies...

i would like to see a huge increase in nuclear power...
that's only money....and even a few high grade jobs...
--
www.abelard.org
Wally W.
2017-08-12 19:16:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:05:19 +0200, abelard wrote:

Did you get the anthropo**mentric** "word choice" from Unum?
abelard
2017-08-13 11:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
the cost if final..
so what most people didn't know in 1850
the logic is similar and there is plenty of data....
what is not clear is how much the cost may be...and on what time scale
of course the time scale won't effect old fogies...
Just gobbledygook!
yeah, that often effects them
Post by abelard
there are technological ways out but currently the filthy fossil
fuel industry has the money to confuse the masses...just
as the fag industry once managed(in the west)
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
and?
and that is just part of the
What?
is being studied...but a very minor part as the science is
already believed by most who study
Post by abelard
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
please sign our partition...but first claim to be 'a scientist'
And do you think it is as simple as that?
yes, you're trying to quote it as some source of authority
some fossil media petition
yet so recently you were trying to rubbish alleged 'authorities'

you are practicing double 'standards'
If you were organising a campaign would you not insist upon verifiable names and addresses with details of positions held? Would not these details be checked?
There will be no Joe Soaps there. Such people to a very large extent rely upon their reputations their careers depend upon them.
They would have been *invited* to add their names. You and I were not invited. I wonder why? Could it be that we had nothing to add to the credibility f the exercise?
i've seen such lists from long ago...almost all of those
listed were the likes of 90 year old us professors (professor
has a different meaning in the usa and the corruption
has started in the uk) social 'scientists' and similar

and it is still an appeal to authority which you have earlier
(more intelligently) dismissed
now you wish to disinter it for your own support
Post by abelard
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
you are being evasive...i gave you an example
Yes you gave me an example totally outside of the context of the subject. Why? I did my best with it.
no you didn't, you tried to avoid it via your own beliefs in fairies
Post by abelard
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
you have no position...well that's a claim that is out of
accord with your posting behaviour...
Oh but I have if you are prepared to think about what you read.
To reiterate, I concede that there is a phenomenon commonly referred to as global warming or climate change. For me it is the near universal recession of glaciers and to a lesser extent the shrinkage of the ice cap in the Arctic which provide the conclusive evidence.
However, there my position ends. Climate is a very complex notion and there and to try and nail the cause predominantly to just one factor, is simply asking too much.
Further to that, these *variations* in global temperature are nothing new. If we are to ascribe global warming to a particular anthropogenic activity then how do we explain similar occurrences that happened before man was on this earth?
Then there is the question relating to what I know about the spectroscopy of CO2. There earth radiates absorbed heat across a wide spectrum. CO2 absorbs radiation across a relatively narrow spectrum band and so most infra red emissions from a cooling earth will not be affected.
you remain incorrect, despite i've corrected you previously

most of the infra red is effected

but at least you have part remembered your previous lesson!
In short the theory is over simplistic. It completely ignores th presence of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not least water vapour and cloud
i've corrected you on that also...water vapour is a dependent variable
...it stays in the atmosphere for 3 or 4 days...co2 for around 100
years...

you don't even know the basic science despite me previously correcting
your misunderstandings
Beyond that there are alternative explanations for GW, that do not involve CO2, which seldom get an airing if others don't care to look.
but you can't name them...

you must realise that i know you are repeating stuff i've already
posted...
you must realise that i remember some of the various errors you
have previously made and i have corrected you for

at which point you invariably go silent...

i normally leave it alone in order to avoid embarrassing you as
you're generally a good chap...but don't suppose i don't
notice
Post by abelard
i do have a position...see below
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
define 'substantial' and 'significant'
You should now by now I don't play silly games.
If you are unfamiliar with commonly used words then I suggest you consult a dictionary.
another standard attempt to escape defining your position...you
do not behave as a scientist...
but i'm sure that like hatstand or bloghead you can tell me all manner
of fascinating things about participles whatever they may be...
and how to speell...or some other nonsense

you are selling your own politics just like lawson...you are not
talking about science, you offering no approach let alone
'solutions'
in fact you are sedulously avoiding any manner of commitment
to anything...

it looks far more like...'please don't disturb my fossilised brain'
to me!

i'm not going to waste time further with this political posturing...
Post by abelard
even you have already admitted it is happening...
See above where I reiterate.
Post by abelard
it's about cost/benefits....your potential costs vastly
far less than those of a 20yo...
so you're more concerned about the insurance payments
the 20 years old will often be more concerned about
the risks...
and 80 year old will not see smoking as so great a risk
...or getting increasing porkie...
What has all this to do with it?
Post by abelard
none of that is a matter of 'conflicting evidence'...it is a matter
of selfish self-interest..
it's not about science any more than it's about science for
gore or lawson
lawson and you and gore are arguing politics...not serious
science...
imv you're not even arguing about beliefs...you're more
engaged in propaganda to get what you individually *want*
Both me and I suggest Lawson are concerned about the vast amount of money and resources that are being used to fight a danger that might well be over stated. If the decision reached is wrong this will impoverish generations to come.
the west is rich beyond any previous times...
money ain't much use to anyone who is ded...

flying around the world going to talk shops is not a solution
to shrinking resources, increasing populations and advancing
deserts...
even paying into one of geldorf's scams will not stop the
millions trying to escape the lands they are destroying...
Post by abelard
there is plentiful evidence that it is occurring...
now it's matter of risk assessments and costs...
and if you guess wrong the young are going to inherit even
more and worse problems...
they will pay....not you...
I have children and grandchildren. In the fullness of time I may well have great grand children. My genes will be carried into the next century and hopefully beyond but that I will never know.
but your ideas will not.

do you really believe 'it's all about bodies'
Do you suggest I don't care about these things? It is just about all I do care about.
'i care about the starving of africa...but i care more about
going on a cruise...'
caring is the easy bit...
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2017-08-13 18:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
'i care about the starving of africa...but i care more about
going on a cruise...'
caring is the easy bit...
Just guff!
no it isn't as you must well know
I note you singularly do not attempt to explain climate variations in both directions which have taken place during recorded history but before the Industrial Revolution. Neither do you attempt to explain more drastic variations again in both directions before that time.
there are several possible variables...milankovich cycles...
often too long time scales...
may be relevant on the scale of the ice ages

sun spots and sun cycles...maybe...but prob too short term

large volcanic eruptions

el nino...

the filth from china and india...and from the industrial revolution

meanwhile i am content with the consensus or those who spend their
lives working on the problems and
the growing statistical and sensor data from around the world...

and i am content with the real world ice retreats...

and i am content that the present temperatures seem to be contrary
to the 'recent' ice age cycling

i am even content with the forcing physics on which you have been
wrong on at least twice...and haven't yet properly learnt from the
previous lessons i offered you
The day such as you can correct me on any scientific matter, is the day I will use my degree certificates and diplomas to light the boiler which will be all they will be good for!
i can see your temptation...but you may still want them
to impress more gullible posters
--
www.abelard.org
Loading...