3 ms·

I believe I am taking the skeptical approach. I've read a lot on the subject and most of what I find is appeals to fear and other emotions, for example that cli

by User23 8y ago

I believe I am taking the skeptical approach. I've read a lot on the subject and most of what I find is appeals to fear and other emotions, for example that climate change is going to destroy the earth. Actually the Earth did quite well during the carboniferous period all things considered. Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. It seems awfully anthropocentric and, honestly, arrogant, to assume that human activity is the only thing that affects atmospheric composition. Perhaps you should take your own advice? > The idea that CO2 level rises is not due to human activity is as far out there as saying you've invented a perpetual motion machine. Honestly. No it isn't. Also, I never positively stated that it isn't.

jonknee 8y ago
> Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. Go get some equipment and stand behind a car's tailpipe sometime and you'll clear up any confusion that humans are releasing CO2... That's a really bizarre thing to be hung up on. The standard skeptic line is that the CO2 isn't a big deal, not that we're not releasing loads of it.
- User23 8y ago
  Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around. Please spare me the ridiculous straw men. The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past than it ever has had since we evolved. Clearly human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition.
  - jonknee 8y ago
    The Earth has a long history and much of it was been a pretty awful environment for life (no oxygen would be a bummer for us, a hellscape of lava sounds uncomfortable and so does being under hundreds of feet of ice). That has nothing to do with how we can do the math about how much CO2 we're emitting and how much the concentration of CO2 is increasing. On a long enough timeline you're right that there is nothing we can do because among other things the Sun is going to explode, but that's a phenomenally stupid reason to suggest we shouldn't manage greenhouse gasses responsibly. Humans live on a very short timeline, but we're producing effects better fit for a geological scale timeline.
  - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
    I think what you're missing here is that climate change activists aren't concerned with "saving the earth" they are REALLY concerned with saving humanity and the current set of flora and fauna on the planet. Yes, Earth has had higher concentrations of CO2, but that was before mammals existed, so, why is that even relevant? I have a hard time believing that you think we'll all be ok if our atmosphere resembles that of the carboniferous period...
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      Yeah, giant dragonflies roaming the air scare the living crap out of me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
  - oldcynic 8y ago
    The earth will be fine. Life will be fine, though it may not include humanity or many of the species we recognise or use for food and comfort. > Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around When there were a lot fewer human beings and each individual released far less CO2. Industrialisation has brought leverage to our use of carbon, and the rate of change has become unprecedented. > The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past ...and has also had sea levels a hundred feet or more higher than today. Which would do what to our major cities? Do we wait for our cities to start being lost and the outside air to feel stuffy all the time before we take this remotely seriously? Or perhaps just wait until there's immediate and catastrophic danger? (ie when it's too late to do anything about) > human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition I don't believe anyone would seriously claim that, but that humanity has added to the numerous existing sources. There are now enough humans using enough carbon through vehicles, heat, light, consumer goods and all the other things of development that the ecosystem can't simply squelch the results of human activity any more. We're seeing it in a whole range of areas outside of CO2, like loss of habitats and species etc.
epistasis 8y ago
You should find better sources. If they are appealing to fear and emotion, you are not finding any science. For example, then you wouldn't be saying silly things like you're not sure that CO2 rose is not the direct causal consequence of human activity. I'm not saying this for my own benefit, I'm saying it for yours. If I encountered a person in real life who said that I would say much harsher things to the persons face than I am now, because I can't see you face to face I want to try to be more reserved in my approbation. Doubting basic science while not bothering to research the reasons that it's accepted science is exactly like believeing in the invention of perpetual motion machines in that it requires first not doing basic homework then thinking that one is much cleverer than everyone else.
- User23 8y ago
  I hate to say it, but your posts are a great example of the generally low quality of discourse on this subject. Veiled threats of verbal beatdowns and ridiculous claims like that climate models that have to be updated monthly are as solid as Newtonian dynamics do not indicate intellectual honesty or rationality.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    Just as if somebody said incredibly contrary things about well established computing principles, you are doing yourself a disservice by not doing basic research while denying well accepted technical facts. This is not being skeptical, it's being lazy. That said, I'm also being lazy too, because it's very hard to spoon feed basic science to those who don't want to learn it. I guess I was hoping to motivate you to take an interest in researching scientific subjects that you are willing to express uninformed opinions on, but I will accept that I have failed after your last response.
    - User23 8y ago
      Established computing principles are theorems that are true by construction, the strongest possible form of truth. Climate models are fancy regression fits to low quality data. We know the raw data is low quality because it requires intense amounts of adjustment before the model makers can use it. You have correctly assessed your ability at persuasion.
lovich 8y ago
>No it isn't. Also, I never positively stated that it isn't. Are you going to write a book called "If I Did It" next? You literally just said "No it isn't" Edit: also, there aren't scientific claims that the Earth is going to be destroyed. Our current biosphere is going to be royally fucked up, and humans are dependent on that because we are adapted to it. Climate change will lead to massive societal problems from just food production changing in output rapdily as arable areas move and fresh water sources change their locations, not to mention weather events like sea rising over coastal cities and 100 year storms showing up every few years. Even if we agree with your position that this issue is not man made, why wouldn't we try to stop the change? It's objectively bad for human societies
- icebraining 8y ago
  Are you going to write a book called "If I Did It" next? You literally just said "No it isn't" I believe the "no it isn't" is meant at the comparison, not at the original question.
yongjik 8y ago
> But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. I see. It's really inconvenient that all this additional CO2 is just megatons of identical molecules and comes without any discernible label that might tell where it came from...... ...except that they actually do! Because photosynthesis favors the lighter C12 atom over C13, all plant material (and hence, all animal material, and all fossil fuel) have slightly lower concentration of C13, compared to other non-biological source of carbon (say, volcanic gas). If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually due to fossil fuels, we must witness a drop in the ratio of C13. And that's exactly what we see! https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...
quickthrower2 8y ago
> Actually the Earth did quite well during the carboniferous period all things considered. Yes I agree Earth, and indeed life will do well on planet earth for a long time despite climate change. Humans on the other hand...
aoner 8y ago
For the past half year I've settled out to objectively answer this question for myself. There is a lot of confusion in main-stream media but if you look more closely you'll see that the scientific evidence is paramount. If you want to take a deep dive, I think the best place is the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...). Their estimates have historically usually been a bit conservative, but I think that is also the power of the organisation. You can read there reports here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_da... The thing is, the more research I did, the more I realised the sheer size of the problem and complexity. There is no quick fix, we need multiple solutions and they should be interdisciplinary (we are lacking interdisciplinary solutions). Also the more research I did, the more I realised, at this moment, carbon dioxide pollution is THE biggest current threat to the existence of humanity. I still think we can solve it, for example renewable are well on their way, and I think that we will also solve the energy-storage problem in the next decade. However we don't have any practical/profitable solutions for carbon storage at scale. If you have specific questions or you want different sources I'd be happy to help. Also, if you feel like your opinion has changed/or not after research, please enlighten other people in a constructive way. But of course, do your own research :).

by User23 8y ago

jonknee 8y ago

> Maybe human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. I don't deny that. They are correlated. I accept that. But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. Go get some equipment and stand behind a car's tailpipe sometime and you'll clear up any confusion that humans are releasing CO2... That's a really bizarre thing to be hung up on. The standard skeptic line is that the CO2 isn't a big deal, not that we're not releasing loads of it.

User23 8y ago
Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around. Please spare me the ridiculous straw men. The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past than it ever has had since we evolved. Clearly human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition.
- jonknee 8y ago
  The Earth has a long history and much of it was been a pretty awful environment for life (no oxygen would be a bummer for us, a hellscape of lava sounds uncomfortable and so does being under hundreds of feet of ice). That has nothing to do with how we can do the math about how much CO2 we're emitting and how much the concentration of CO2 is increasing. On a long enough timeline you're right that there is nothing we can do because among other things the Sun is going to explode, but that's a phenomenally stupid reason to suggest we shouldn't manage greenhouse gasses responsibly. Humans live on a very short timeline, but we're producing effects better fit for a geological scale timeline.
- JeffreyKaine 8y ago
  I think what you're missing here is that climate change activists aren't concerned with "saving the earth" they are REALLY concerned with saving humanity and the current set of flora and fauna on the planet. Yes, Earth has had higher concentrations of CO2, but that was before mammals existed, so, why is that even relevant? I have a hard time believing that you think we'll all be ok if our atmosphere resembles that of the carboniferous period...
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Yeah, giant dragonflies roaming the air scare the living crap out of me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
- oldcynic 8y ago
  The earth will be fine. Life will be fine, though it may not include humanity or many of the species we recognise or use for food and comfort. > Human beings have been releasing CO2 for a lot longer than the Otto cycle has been around When there were a lot fewer human beings and each individual released far less CO2. Industrialisation has brought leverage to our use of carbon, and the rate of change has become unprecedented. > The Earth had far higher CO2 concentrations in the past ...and has also had sea levels a hundred feet or more higher than today. Which would do what to our major cities? Do we wait for our cities to start being lost and the outside air to feel stuffy all the time before we take this remotely seriously? Or perhaps just wait until there's immediate and catastrophic danger? (ie when it's too late to do anything about) > human behavior is not the only possible cause of net changes in atmospheric composition I don't believe anyone would seriously claim that, but that humanity has added to the numerous existing sources. There are now enough humans using enough carbon through vehicles, heat, light, consumer goods and all the other things of development that the ecosystem can't simply squelch the results of human activity any more. We're seeing it in a whole range of areas outside of CO2, like loss of habitats and species etc.

epistasis 8y ago

You should find better sources. If they are appealing to fear and emotion, you are not finding any science. For example, then you wouldn't be saying silly things like you're not sure that CO2 rose is not the direct causal consequence of human activity. I'm not saying this for my own benefit, I'm saying it for yours. If I encountered a person in real life who said that I would say much harsher things to the persons face than I am now, because I can't see you face to face I want to try to be more reserved in my approbation. Doubting basic science while not bothering to research the reasons that it's accepted science is exactly like believeing in the invention of perpetual motion machines in that it requires first not doing basic homework then thinking that one is much cleverer than everyone else.

User23 8y ago
I hate to say it, but your posts are a great example of the generally low quality of discourse on this subject. Veiled threats of verbal beatdowns and ridiculous claims like that climate models that have to be updated monthly are as solid as Newtonian dynamics do not indicate intellectual honesty or rationality.
- epistasis 8y ago
  Just as if somebody said incredibly contrary things about well established computing principles, you are doing yourself a disservice by not doing basic research while denying well accepted technical facts. This is not being skeptical, it's being lazy. That said, I'm also being lazy too, because it's very hard to spoon feed basic science to those who don't want to learn it. I guess I was hoping to motivate you to take an interest in researching scientific subjects that you are willing to express uninformed opinions on, but I will accept that I have failed after your last response.
  - User23 8y ago
    Established computing principles are theorems that are true by construction, the strongest possible form of truth. Climate models are fancy regression fits to low quality data. We know the raw data is low quality because it requires intense amounts of adjustment before the model makers can use it. You have correctly assessed your ability at persuasion.

lovich 8y ago

>No it isn't. Also, I never positively stated that it isn't. Are you going to write a book called "If I Did It" next? You literally just said "No it isn't" Edit: also, there aren't scientific claims that the Earth is going to be destroyed. Our current biosphere is going to be royally fucked up, and humans are dependent on that because we are adapted to it. Climate change will lead to massive societal problems from just food production changing in output rapdily as arable areas move and fresh water sources change their locations, not to mention weather events like sea rising over coastal cities and 100 year storms showing up every few years. Even if we agree with your position that this issue is not man made, why wouldn't we try to stop the change? It's objectively bad for human societies

icebraining 8y ago
Are you going to write a book called "If I Did It" next? You literally just said "No it isn't" I believe the "no it isn't" is meant at the comparison, not at the original question.

yongjik 8y ago

> But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable. I see. It's really inconvenient that all this additional CO2 is just megatons of identical molecules and comes without any discernible label that might tell where it came from...... ...except that they actually do! Because photosynthesis favors the lighter C12 atom over C13, all plant material (and hence, all animal material, and all fossil fuel) have slightly lower concentration of C13, compared to other non-biological source of carbon (say, volcanic gas). If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually due to fossil fuels, we must witness a drop in the ratio of C13. And that's exactly what we see! https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...

quickthrower2 8y ago

> Actually the Earth did quite well during the carboniferous period all things considered. Yes I agree Earth, and indeed life will do well on planet earth for a long time despite climate change. Humans on the other hand...

aoner 8y ago

For the past half year I've settled out to objectively answer this question for myself. There is a lot of confusion in main-stream media but if you look more closely you'll see that the scientific evidence is paramount. If you want to take a deep dive, I think the best place is the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...). Their estimates have historically usually been a bit conservative, but I think that is also the power of the organisation. You can read there reports here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_da... The thing is, the more research I did, the more I realised the sheer size of the problem and complexity. There is no quick fix, we need multiple solutions and they should be interdisciplinary (we are lacking interdisciplinary solutions). Also the more research I did, the more I realised, at this moment, carbon dioxide pollution is THE biggest current threat to the existence of humanity. I still think we can solve it, for example renewable are well on their way, and I think that we will also solve the energy-storage problem in the next decade. However we don't have any practical/profitable solutions for carbon storage at scale. If you have specific questions or you want different sources I'd be happy to help. Also, if you feel like your opinion has changed/or not after research, please enlighten other people in a constructive way. But of course, do your own research :).