eyeball Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Does anyone seriously think that emissions can be cut enough to reduce temperatures, even were climate change generated by humans? Not at all. The deniers have clearly won the day hands down, it's not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Right. A big deal these days is just cutting the rate of increase. Given that we just passed 7 billion on our way to a possible 16 billion by the end of this century, all of whom will want to eat and stay warm, and many of whom will want jobs and cars, actually reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful way seems a bit of a dream to me. Which is why I say this is all about redistribution and/or funding a huge worldwide bureaucracy. Not about climate. If you ask the typical 4th world thug about climate he won't know what the discussion is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Not at all. The deniers have clearly won the day hands down, it's not even close. I don't think the deniers had anything at all to do with it. It's the selfish who have won hands down. Those who don't want to give up everything, including the right to have babies. Because that's what it would take, and even then we'd need luck as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Given that we just passed 7 billion on our way to a possible 16 billion by the end of this century, all of whom will want to eat and stay warm, and many of whom will want jobs and cars, actually reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful way seems a bit of a dream to me. Dream on, I think we'll be lucky if we even make it to 7.5 billion. My own 'hope' for the future is that we see a very rapid acceleration of CC effects so that the generation most responsible faces some real consequences for it's hubris and indifference. This might also result in a few resources being left over for future, way in the future, generations to utilize. Hopefully they'll be able to make a better go of it than we did but the evidence so far shows that impoverished societies actually make even worse environmental stewards. See Easter Island for example. We really cocked up our first attempt at a global civilization. We probably could have used another 50,000 years of social evolution before advancing so fast on the technological side. Live and learn I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 I don't think the deniers had anything at all to do with it. It's the selfish who have won hands down. Those who don't want to give up everything, including the right to have babies. Because that's what it would take, and even then we'd need luck as well. There's no shortage of blame to go around alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Dream on, I think we'll be lucky if we even make it to 7.5 billion. My own 'hope' for the future is that we see a very rapid acceleration of CC effects so that the generation most responsible faces some real consequences for it's hubris and indifference. This might also result in a few resources being left over for future, way in the future, generations to utilize. Hopefully they'll be able to make a better go of it than we did but the evidence so far shows that impoverished societies actually make even worse environmental stewards. See Easter Island for example. We really cocked up our first attempt at a global civilization. We probably could have used another 50,000 years of social evolution before advancing so fast on the technological side. Live and learn I guess. You might get your wish. I think the methane hydrates on the ocean floor might do the trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Unsurprisingly, you don't understand the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on you. If you want to claim that such funding organizations are biased, then it is up to you to provide positive evidence for your claim. been there done that...welcome to denierworld i Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) The burden of proof lies on you. If you want to claim that such funding organizations are biased, then it is up to you to provide positive evidence for your claim. Sorry. I do not accept your premise that any human organization can be unbiased. When people use the word "unbiased" all they really mean "makes decisions that I agree with". This extremely subjective nature of the bias means that is impossible to provide "positive evidence" for such a claim because positive evidence for one person is proof of neutrality for another and vice versa. Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Sorry. I do not accept your premise that any human organization can be unbiased. When people use the word "unbiased" all they really mean "makes decisions that I agree with". This extremely subjective nature of the bias means that is impossible to provide "positive evidence" for such a claim because positive evidence for one person is proof of neutrality for another and vise versa. If you can't prove there's bias, then how do you know it exists? Just a hunch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) If you can't prove there's bias, then how do you know it exists?If you can't prove they are unbiased then how do you know they are? Blind faith?You also missed my point. I could provide plenty of examples of bias but you would simply dismiss them as evidence the system is 'working as it should' because you are biased in favour of climate alarmism. Bias is purely subjective measure and it is absurd to claim that anyone or anything is unbiased. The only useful question is: what biases exist and how do they affect the science being done. Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Sorry. I do not accept your premise that any human organization can be unbiased. Does that include organized deniers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Does that include organized deniers? You will have to explain yourself because the term 'organized deniers' is a insult and does not convey any useful information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 ya a survey of many from very different disciplines, meteorologists included in that survey study short term weather events not long term...and petroleum geologists would be include in that survey what do you suppose their bias would be, what expertise do they have in agriculture/food production as a result of climate change? a survey of actual Climatologists experts on the issue is 97% believe human-induced warming is occurring...if you have cardiac health issues you consult a cardiologist not a podiatrist... 97% of dentists say you should get a check up every 6 months. 97% of chiropractors say you should get your back cracked every 6 months. 97% of naturopaths say you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face. 97% of car salesmen say you should buy a car. Should I go on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 97% of dentists say you should get a check up every 6 months. 97% of chiropractors say you should get your back cracked every 6 months. 97% of naturopaths say you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face. 97% of car salesmen say you should buy a car. Should I go on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 You will have to explain yourself because the term 'organized deniers' is a insult and does not convey any useful information. No you're just biased, it's not an insult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 That's so unbelievably dense I'm genuinely feeling sorry for you. Read my last post again. Your request for a citation was stupid on the most fundamental level. You're requesting a citation proving the non-existence of something, namely the non-existent ability of climate scientists to accurately measure how responsible carbon emissions are for climate related disaster. This is monumentally stupid. It's like asking me to prove that aliens don't exist on another world, or that you weren't dropped on your head when you were a baby. It's not possible to prove their non-existence. Do you understand yet? The only thing more pathetic than failing this basic test of common sense is that you still didn't understand after it was plainly explained to you. how obtuse are you? Truly... just how dense are you? You make a most bold and direct assertion qualifying the monetary impact measurement of climate change on developing countries; qualifying the measurement to, as you say, "at best inaccurate and leaning more towards arbitrary". If you make a statement, rather, a most bold and direct assertion, asking you to provide a citation to support your assertion is nothing more than a basic request to have you substantiate your statement. If you can't do so, you shouldn't be making such a bold direct assertion. clearly, your narrow perceptions and misunderstandings, once again, fail to allow you to make proper distinctions between events attributed to climate change, direct/indirect costs associated with attributed climate change events, and targeted monies (costs) associated with adaptation and/or mitigation policies. There shouldn't be any reason for you to wig-out over a basic request asking you to substantiate your assertion that measuring these direct/indirect and targeted costs is, as you say, "inaccurate... arbitrary"... no reason, unless you're unprepared/unable or unwilling to support your assertion. Your "non-existence... non-existent" nonsense flies in the face of a veritable cottage industry working overtime to churn out reports/studies on cost attachments associated with climate change... hey now, I also understand this is a favoured topical pursuit for insurance companies - go figure! The measurement of the monetary impact of climate change on these countries is at best inaccurate and leaning more towards abitrary. citations please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Dream on, I think we'll be lucky if we even make it to 7.5 billion. We'll reach 7.5 billion within a couple years. My own 'hope' for the future is that we see a very rapid acceleration of CC effects so that the generation most responsible faces some real consequences for it's hubris and indifference. This might also result in a few resources being left over for future, way in the future, generations to utilize. There aren't enough resources left. That is, if human civilization as we know it collapses (which is what you're hoping for), and centuries down the road a new civilization tries to industrialize, they won't be able to do it. All the easy to access resources are gone. There are still a lot of resources, but they are in hard to access places, which require a lot of science and technology to exploit, and getting to that level of technology requires having had easy to access resources first. This is our one and only shot. And some of us are working to make the best of it, rather than sitting around complaining. Edited October 3, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Sorry. I do not accept your premise that any human organization can be unbiased. When people use the word "unbiased" all they really mean "makes decisions that I agree with". This extremely subjective nature of the bias means that is impossible to provide "positive evidence" for such a claim because positive evidence for one person is proof of neutrality for another and vice versa. Systemic bias in one direction should be noticable. Yes every human being within the organization has some bias, but that does not mean that the sum of the bias is directional. It could for the most part just cancel out. Are there organziations that are biased? Sure. Does that mean that all organizations are? No. Without seeing evidence to support NSERC bias I have no reason to accept it. Doing so would simply be accepting your bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 No. With the industrialization of the developing world, emissions are going to accelerate. That's why it's so critically important to be researching an alternative to fossil fuels. Instead we're wasting monumental amounts of money on idiotic endeavors like bio-fuels, immature solar technology and doomed-to-failure climate treaties. naive much? Oh, that's right... weren't you the guy who earlier said something like a "Manhattan Project" undertaking is required. How do you measure the global political will for something like that? Does the voluntary resistance to mitigation pursuits, offer you any insight? Does the obstructionism from BigOil and it's myriad of associated lobby-based extensions, offer you any insight? Perhaps you anticipate a global leader to come forward on its own to champion this "Manhattan Project" like endevour... perhaps the U.S.?... oh wait, it appears the obstructionist GOP/TeaPartee won't support you, Moonbox! Now what... just how are you making it happen, Moonbox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well that was a good debate. Same time tomorrow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 The only useful question is: what biases exist and how do they affect the science being done. ya ya, same ole, same ole TimG... a couple of your favourites come to mind - confirmation bias/ideological bias. I'm forever inquisitive as to how you maintain these biases... and others... never associate with your favoured cadre of denier/skeptical scientists, and never affect the science they're undertaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 a survey of actual Climatologists experts on the issue is 97% believe human-induced warming is occurring...if you have cardiac health issues you consult a cardiologist, not a podiatrist... 97% of dentists say you should get a check up every 6 months. 97% of chiropractors say you should get your back cracked every 6 months. 97% of naturopaths say you should buy $40 mud and rub it on your face. 97% of car salesmen say you should buy a car. Should I go on? yes, please do. You can reinforce you don't understand the distinction between science proper and policy extensions/recommendations... the so-called 'belief' versus policy/advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Which is why I say this is all about redistribution and/or funding a huge worldwide bureaucracy. keep saying it - loudly... it will keep your wealth distribution and world government boogeymen at bay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 yes, please do. You can reinforce you don't understand the distinction between science proper and policy extensions/recommendations... the so-called 'belief' versus policy/advice. Oh sorry I thought we were talking about climatologists, not science proper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Well that was a good debate. Same time tomorrow? If you want to put out nonsense at the same time, sure, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.