Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

Red herring tactic.

Sigh,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

It is only sufficient to show that a belief is the most justified to act on that belief; it is not necessary to prove without doubt that a belief is true.
There has been no change in my position. You are just confused because people using skeptical language and thinking non-dogmatically is foreign to you.

Both claims mean basically the same thing and the former (in the absence of contrary evidence) justifies the latter.

More philosophical garbage.

Get on with the debate. Nobody cares about epistemology or logical fallacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

as of a few weeks ago, you didn't know what FACE was... you stated you needed to rely upon your non-real world greenhouse enclosure bubble world to be able to control for CO2 concentration!!! And... it was another member that brought that study forward... but nice of you to latch onto it and falsely posture that you actually knew what FACE was. Poser!

"belief"??? What, c'mon... now you're just... believing it... you're not claiming it anymore? "Positive on plant growth"??? What, c'mon... now it's just a positive... you're not claiming "a global increase in crop yields" anymore? :D You've provided nothing... nothing... that would allow you to extrapolate to a global level any experimental results from your non-real world, artificial, controlled greenhouse enclosure bubble world!

and again, you're bringing nothing new... you're offering nothing of value.

To be fair, neither are you. Let's see you outline all of the problems associated with CO2 concentrations. Then we can compare them to all the benefits that -1=e^ipi is going to provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, neither are you. Let's see you outline all of the problems associated with CO2 concentrations. Then we can compare them to all the benefits that -1=e^ipi is going to provide.

nice! Your last request specifically keyed to agriculture... tied in with the unsubstantiated claim from the other guy about a global increase in crop yields. I did a ready drop to the prior USGCRP report related post I put forward and highlighted the first 4 points keyed directly to your focused agriculture request... the rest of the points having broader coverage. Speaking of 'broad', this your latest request is about as broad as it gets; ie. the negative effects of climate change - I mean, I could start dropping links to the latest IPCC AR5 report. The last time I did that (a few pages back), the other guy totally dismissed the graphic I put forward showing his crop yield claim (which he's never substantiated) has no merit; that's right, the other guy outright dismissed it with a clear comment that showed he hadn't even the basic grasp of how the IPCC process works - how it's findings are arrived at. Of course, all the supporting foundation to the graphic is within the actual related report... but that would mean the other guy would have had to actually look at the report! What a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even after my post, you still don't layout the net benefits. You continue to go on about your arguments being misrepresented. I don't give a shit about the nature of the arguments here. I care about the substantial points you have to make. Like I said earlier, I'm not well versed on the subject and would like to see a comparison of the gains and losses.

I wasn't trying to answer your question in my last post, because I was trying to get more information before answering the question.

Also, I think that it would be better if you create a new thread. Waldo is just going to misrepresent me for pages, so anything that is written will be buried.

Also, if you do create a new thread, I suggest you try to use as clearly defined and as specific question as reasonably possible, because more clearly defined and specific questions are easier to answer.
Another thing that I would like to clarify about my position is that I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 levels by a small amount is positive. Rather I have seen more evidence to support the claim that the net effect is positive than evidence to support the claim that the net effect is negative. If you want me to provide a more comprehensive justification, that would take quite a bit of time on my part and I would have to perform more analysis (which would of course open me up to falsifying my own beliefs, which is fine). Though if I do make a more comprehensive analysis, I would hope that people will read it (not many people read through my post on jet streams for example).

So far neither of you have provided anything to substantiate either the benefits or losses associated with increased CO2 concentrations. Let's get a ledger up here with the pros and cons, so we can all be more informed and come to the conclusions for ourselves. This bickering about who's misrepresenting the other, yadda yadda yadda, I don't care. Post the facts. That's what I'm interested in. Then I can draw my own conclusions.

Okay, I think you've sufficiently answered my second question in this post and in your other post (by 'both sides' you mean me and Waldo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More philosophical garbage.

... Waldo was accusing me of changing my position because I was talking about which belief is most justified... Are you saying I should not respond to that?

Get on with the debate. Nobody cares about epistemology or logical fallacies.

Could you clarify what you mean by you not caring about logical fallacies? Are you implying that you accept logical fallacies as valid arguments or are you implying that you will not accept them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Waldo was accusing me of changing my position because I was talking about which belief is most justified... Are you saying I should not respond to that?

hey now! Can ya somehow put that in the razor... and by the by... which bloody derivative are you speaking to now!!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reliable, predictable measurable timelines would sure be nice too. I mean it's not like I'm asking for anything that sceptics don't usually ask for in this business,

Yes it would be nice. But of course this would involve evaluating expected change under different scenarios (a scenario where CO2 concentrations are high enough to melt the antarctic ice sheet in the long run will look quite different in the long run than a scenario where they are not), creating and justifying a reasonable climate model to evaluate changes over time (then it might be a good idea to write a computer program to simulate the changes), finding a reasonable discount rate to compare changes at different points in time, etc. It would complicate answering the question by several orders of magnitude.

Perhaps it would be better to evaluate the question of if a small marginal change in atmospheric CO2 levels is beneficial or not. Because this is more clearly defined, you can make reasonable approximating assumptions (such as taylor approximations) to simplify models, you can use empirically observed evidence to more accurately evaluate parameters in the model, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice! Your last request specifically keyed to agriculture... tied in with the unsubstantiated claim from the other guy about a global increase in crop yields. I did a ready drop to the prior USGCRP report related post I put forward and highlighted the first 4 points keyed directly to your focused agriculture request... the rest of the points having broader coverage. Speaking of 'broad', this your latest request is about as broad as it gets; ie. the negative effects of climate change - I mean, I could start dropping links to the latest IPCC AR5 report. The last time I did that (a few pages back), the other guy totally dismissed the graphic I put forward showing his crop yield claim (which he's never substantiated) has no merit; that's right, the other guy outright dismissed it with a clear comment that showed he hadn't even the basic grasp of how the IPCC process works - how it's findings are arrived at. Of course, all the supporting foundation to the graphic is within the actual related report... but that would mean the other guy would have had to actually look at the report! What a concept.

Yes, if you want out of context conclusions from IPCC reports that show that changes to crop yields are not statistically significant (and the methodology & theoretical models used to arrive at these results are not provided) then Waldo is a good source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reliable, predictable measurable timelines would sure be nice too. I mean it's not like I'm asking for anything that sceptics don't usually ask for in this business,

Yes. Good point. I would expect that to be part of the discussion instead of just a bunch of hypotheticals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice! Your last request specifically keyed to agriculture... tied in with the unsubstantiated claim from the other guy about a global increase in crop yields. I did a ready drop to the prior USGCRP report related post I put forward and highlighted the first 4 points keyed directly to your focused agriculture request... the rest of the points having broader coverage. Speaking of 'broad', this your latest request is about as broad as it gets; ie. the negative effects of climate change - I mean, I could start dropping links to the latest IPCC AR5 report. The last time I did that (a few pages back), the other guy totally dismissed the graphic I put forward showing his crop yield claim (which he's never substantiated) has no merit; that's right, the other guy outright dismissed it with a clear comment that showed he hadn't even the basic grasp of how the IPCC process works - how it's findings are arrived at. Of course, all the supporting foundation to the graphic is within the actual related report... but that would mean the other guy would have had to actually look at the report! What a concept.

Stop talking about the other guy and his arguments. Don't link me reports and tell me to go read them. Just list point by point the negative consequences in plain, clear language.

Is this really that hard guys? Why are you making others do the legwork here? Just put up the facts of your arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Waldo was accusing me of changing my position because I was talking about which belief is most justified... Are you saying I should not respond to that?

Could you clarify what you mean by you not caring about logical fallacies? Are you implying that you accept logical fallacies as valid arguments or are you implying that you will not accept them?

This has nothing to do with what I'm interested in.

I give up.

It's obvious you guys are more interested in arguing itself than actually making a point about the topic. Looks like I'm done with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to facilitate, so much as trying to actually learn something here. They both act like they have a lot to say, but one refers you to links and makes you create his arguments for him, while the other won't even go that far to substantiate his claims. I just want to see a clear list of the pros and cons that each are claiming about CO2 concentration. I don't come on this forum to have to do rigorous research myself. I want to see a quick summary of the argument and then read the discussion. Instead we have people debating about debating. It's annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to facilitate, so much as trying to actually learn something here. They both act like they have a lot to say, but one refers you to links and makes you create his arguments for him, while the other won't even go that far to substantiate his claims. I just want to see a clear list of the pros and cons that each are claiming about CO2 concentration. I don't come on this forum to have to do rigorous research myself. I want to see a quick summary of the argument and then read the discussion. Instead we have people debating about debating. It's annoying.

I do not mind substantiating my claims. All I request is a clearly and well-defined question you want an answer to. I also suggest that you create a new thread because any posts in this thread will probably get quickly buried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today is a beautiful 30 degree day. I'm going running and swimming. I don't care if it would have been 29 but for some mythical catastrophic human addition to the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop talking about the other guy and his arguments. Don't link me reports and tell me to go read them. Just list point by point the negative consequences in plain, clear language.

Is this really that hard guys? Why are you making others do the legwork here? Just put up the facts of your arguments.

This has nothing to do with what I'm interested in.

I give up.

It's obvious you guys are more interested in arguing itself than actually making a point about the topic. Looks like I'm done with this.

what a prima-donna you are! Again, I responded directly to your request - the following request, where you focused completely and entirely on 'agriculture'... again, the first 4 points directly reflect upon negative affects on agriculture; the remaining 6 points on more broadly encompassed negative effects. Not only do you ignore the content of the post, you have the nerve to suggest it/I didn't offer anything of value..... and that, all of a sudden, you're no longer interested in the agriculture focus you inquired on... and you decide to ramp up your request to the broadest of broad. Now you, apparently, want to be spoon-fed all... all... negative (and presumed positive) effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration! Tell you what - give up... I certainly have no use for your prima-donna act!

Let's put the bickering aside and account for this idea that increased CO2 concentration will have a net agricultural benefit. Where will the benefits be? What negative effects might there be?

as an example, I put the following forward way back in Dec 2013 - from the latest 2014 USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program report - National Climate Assessment)... it was draft at that time; as of May 2014 now published. The other guy ignored it, the same way he's ignored every reference I've brought forward. I'm not bothering to compare draft to published versions... points for your pointed agricultural emphasis appear first in the listing:

- Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, diseases, insect pests, and other climate change induced stresses.

- Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further over the next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.

- The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity because critical thresholds are already being exceeded.

- Current loss and degradation of critical agricultural soil and water assets by increasing extremes in precipitation will continue to challenge both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture unless innovative conservation methods are implemented.

- Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U.S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased wildfire and insect outbreaks; eastern forests have smaller disturbances but could be more sensitive to periodic drought.

- U.S. forests currently absorb about 13% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. Climate change, combined with current societal trends regarding land use and forest management, is projected to reduce forest CO2 uptake.

- Climate change impacts on ecosystems reduce their ability to improve water quality and regulate water flows.

- Climate change combined with other stressors is overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts from extreme events like fires, floods, and storms.

- Land- and sea-scapes are changing rapidly and species, including many iconic species, may disappear from regions where they have been prevalent, changing some regions so much that their mix of plant and animal life will become almost unrecognizable.

- Timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations, will shift, leading to important impacts on species and habitats.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mind substantiating my claims.

huh! Say what, brother??? Why not start with your "increase in global crop yields" claim? Cause you most certainly, most definitely, have offered nada/zilch/bupkis to support/substantiate that claim. Start there, hey!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what a prima-donna you are! Again, I responded directly to your request - the following request, where you focused completely and entirely on 'agriculture'... again, the first 4 points directly reflect upon negative affects on agriculture; the remaining 6 points on more broadly encompassed negative effects. Not only do you ignore the content of the post, you have the nerve to suggest it/I didn't offer anything of value..... and that, all of a sudden, you're no longer interested in the agriculture focus you inquired on... and you decide to ramp up your request to the broadest of broad. Now you, apparently, want to be spoon-fed all... all... negative (and presumed positive) effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration! Tell you what - give up... I certainly have no use for your prima-donna act!

Do I need to report you for making personal insults, when I have the "audacity" to ask people to lay out their arguments clearly so I can try, strong emphasis on try, to learn from the debate? If you two spent a fraction as much time actually making your points as you do making insults and arguing about debating tactics, people might actually be able to learn a thing or two here. Instead you two resort to petty bickering and condescension. I don't generally notice or say anything about it because I tend to ignore these threads. I noticed that I might be able to learn something here, so I thought I would try to get you guys to clean up your acts.

But nope. Here's what you reply to me with. Personal insults and garbage. You could have just re-iterated your points that I obviously missed due to your squabbling, but you had to be insulting about it. Well, have fun arguing about debate tactics because I've already determined there's absolutely nothing to be learned from either of you two here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to report you for making personal insults, when I have the "audacity" to ask people to lay out their arguments clearly so I can try, strong emphasis on try, to learn from the debate? If you two spent a fraction as much time actually making your points as you do making insults and arguing about debating tactics, people might actually be able to learn a thing or two here. Instead you two resort to petty bickering and condescension. I don't generally notice or say anything about it because I tend to ignore these threads. I noticed that I might be able to learn something here, so I thought I would try to get you guys to clean up your acts.

But nope. Here's what you reply to me with. Personal insults and garbage. You could have just re-iterated your points that I obviously missed due to your squabbling, but you had to be insulting about it. Well, have fun arguing about debate tactics because I've already determined there's absolutely nothing to be learned from either of you two here.

Cybercoma, why not just create a new thread with a clearly defined question and I will try to answer your question as best I can?

I'm not sure why you are grouping me with Waldo though. I'd prefer not to be the target of guilt by association.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I need to report you for making personal insults, when I have the "audacity" to ask people to lay out their arguments clearly so I can try, strong emphasis on try, to learn from the debate? If you two spent a fraction as much time actually making your points as you do making insults and arguing about debating tactics, people might actually be able to learn a thing or two here. Instead you two resort to petty bickering and condescension. I don't generally notice or say anything about it because I tend to ignore these threads. I noticed that I might be able to learn something here, so I thought I would try to get you guys to clean up your acts.

But nope. Here's what you reply to me with. Personal insults and garbage. You could have just re-iterated your points that I obviously missed due to your squabbling, but you had to be insulting about it. Well, have fun arguing about debate tactics because I've already determined there's absolutely nothing to be learned from either of you two here.

I replied directly to your narrow focused request relative to agricultural (negative) effects. You effectively ignored it; no, rather you stated it/I offered no value. You then proceeded to extend upon your relatively narrow focused request taking it to a much broader level. I comment on the 'broadness' of a such a request... you have a meltdown! As for points you claim you "missed", I repeated them again in my response to your meltdown... now twice specifically for you. Yet, still no comment from you other than your completely over-the-top reaction... one you now double-down on. You weren't insulted - it's a very apt description of your act here.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that I would like to clarify about my position is that I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 levels by a small amount is positive. Rather I have seen more evidence to support the claim that the net effect is positive than evidence to support the claim that the net effect is negative. If you want me to provide a more comprehensive justification, that would take quite a bit of time on my part and I would have to perform more analysis (which would of course open me up to falsifying my own beliefs, which is fine). Though if I do make a more comprehensive analysis, I would hope that people will read it (not many people read through my post on jet streams for example).

a small amount??? You mean smaller than the 1200 ppm level you so pined for... that you suggested subsidies for emissions to allow that 1200 ppm level to be reached faster? Smaller than that level? Will your justification take the same 4 months and match the brevity of your last 7800 word manifesto?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would be nice. But of course this would involve evaluating expected change under different scenarios (a scenario where CO2 concentrations are high enough to melt the antarctic ice sheet in the long run will look quite different in the long run than a scenario where they are not), creating and justifying a reasonable climate model to evaluate changes over time (then it might be a good idea to write a computer program to simulate the changes), finding a reasonable discount rate to compare changes at different points in time, etc. It would complicate answering the question by several orders of magnitude.

Perhaps it would be better to evaluate the question of if a small marginal change in atmospheric CO2 levels is beneficial or not. Because this is more clearly defined, you can make reasonable approximating assumptions (such as taylor approximations) to simplify models, you can use empirically observed evidence to more accurately evaluate parameters in the model, etc.

Perhaps it would be if you think this evaluation would sway the vast vast and growing majority of scientists, experts and professionals who remain convinced that things will be far from groovy, beneficial or positive at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...