3 ms·

I'm all for getting rid of carbon fuels due to inefficiency, lack of scalability, etc. But, global warming? I would have expected better of educated people suc

I'm all for getting rid of carbon fuels due to inefficiency, lack of scalability, etc. But, global warming? I would have expected better of educated people such as these. eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuj_tlRRQdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuj_tlRRQdQ

rndn 11y ago
What about this: > Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_...
- hobarrera 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ? We should weight evidence, not amount of people behind it.
7952 11y ago
It is almost inconceivable that humans are not changing climate. The atmosphere is a chaotic system that is influenced by things that humans have directly changed. It is just difficult to quantify the magnitude of that change because there is no baseline that would show what the planet would be like without human activity. These endless arguments over the semantics of what scientists think is completely inane. We need educated people to actually understand how the environment works and stop treating it like some abstract concept that only exists inside some scientist's head. If you release millions of tons of stuff into the environment then it will have an effect that could be bad.
- hobarrera 11y ago
  > If you release millions of tons of stuff into the environment then it will have an effect that could be bad. You're quite right, it could have a bad effect, but we've yet to prove that climate changes are an effect of those gases we've released. One, quite important, detail, on climate change, is that a few several centuries ago, the earth was actually warmer by a few degrees that it is today. This would indicate that climate changes is not strictly due to the gases we're putting out, and that there are more complex variables in the system than what's being considered.
  - 7952 11y ago
    >> This would indicate that climate changes is not strictly due to the gases we're putting out, and that there are more complex variables in the system than what's being considered. As I said we lack a baseline of what the world would look like without human activity. Either way I think your point is mute from a policy point of view. The environment is inextricably linked to humanity for the forseeable future. It may be interesting to speculate on if a change is "natural" but we cannot possibly seperate the human enviornment from the natural environment. What we lack is agency in how the environment is changed. It may get warmer or colder, but we don't have a choice. Reducing green house gas emissions is a way of trying to control the atmosphere for the benefit of humans.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
My first thought was to respond with https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm, but we all know that hobarrera isn't actually interested in facts (or why post a video of a non-scientist confronting other non-scientists about all the things none of them know anything about)? Scott dealt with him correctly. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452
- hobarrera 11y ago
  > or why post a video of a non-scientist confronting other non-scientists about all the things none of them know anything about Well, the origin post is also about someone not specialized in this area speaking about the issue. I don't think "no being a scientist" disqualifies anything you say: what we should care about are merely the facts that the person exposes. I actually went through the first link you posted. The first paragraph is no more than a Argumentum Ad Hominem, while the rest is a lot of claims, with many interlinked articles, but no strong raw data to back most of it up. > Scott dealt with him correctly. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452 He basically disregarded the information provided because the video was on youtube. He made no reference to the data provided in various talks by Mockton. He the procuded to another falacy: Argumentum ad populum. "Since most people think it's right, it must be right". --- Here's one of several interesting talks on the subject, if you're interested on the data: https://youtu.be/ppQl6KYyMqA?t=139 https://youtu.be/ppQl6KYyMqA?t=139
- hobarrera 11y ago
  Example of something imporperly addresse in the above link: Monckton: The earth is cooling Counter-argument: The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. Yet, during the last five years it has decreased noticeably, but we haven't drastically reduced emissions. Even if we altered emissions radically, the latency it would have on the global temperature is by far more than a few years.

rndn 11y ago

What about this: > Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_...

hobarrera 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ? We should weight evidence, not amount of people behind it.

7952 11y ago

It is almost inconceivable that humans are not changing climate. The atmosphere is a chaotic system that is influenced by things that humans have directly changed. It is just difficult to quantify the magnitude of that change because there is no baseline that would show what the planet would be like without human activity. These endless arguments over the semantics of what scientists think is completely inane. We need educated people to actually understand how the environment works and stop treating it like some abstract concept that only exists inside some scientist's head. If you release millions of tons of stuff into the environment then it will have an effect that could be bad.

hobarrera 11y ago
> If you release millions of tons of stuff into the environment then it will have an effect that could be bad. You're quite right, it could have a bad effect, but we've yet to prove that climate changes are an effect of those gases we've released. One, quite important, detail, on climate change, is that a few several centuries ago, the earth was actually warmer by a few degrees that it is today. This would indicate that climate changes is not strictly due to the gases we're putting out, and that there are more complex variables in the system than what's being considered.
- 7952 11y ago
  >> This would indicate that climate changes is not strictly due to the gases we're putting out, and that there are more complex variables in the system than what's being considered. As I said we lack a baseline of what the world would look like without human activity. Either way I think your point is mute from a policy point of view. The environment is inextricably linked to humanity for the forseeable future. It may be interesting to speculate on if a change is "natural" but we cannot possibly seperate the human enviornment from the natural environment. What we lack is agency in how the environment is changed. It may get warmer or colder, but we don't have a choice. Reducing green house gas emissions is a way of trying to control the atmosphere for the benefit of humans.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

My first thought was to respond with https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm, but we all know that hobarrera isn't actually interested in facts (or why post a video of a non-scientist confronting other non-scientists about all the things none of them know anything about)? Scott dealt with him correctly. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452

hobarrera 11y ago
> or why post a video of a non-scientist confronting other non-scientists about all the things none of them know anything about Well, the origin post is also about someone not specialized in this area speaking about the issue. I don't think "no being a scientist" disqualifies anything you say: what we should care about are merely the facts that the person exposes. I actually went through the first link you posted. The first paragraph is no more than a Argumentum Ad Hominem, while the rest is a lot of claims, with many interlinked articles, but no strong raw data to back most of it up. > Scott dealt with him correctly. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2316#comment-639452 He basically disregarded the information provided because the video was on youtube. He made no reference to the data provided in various talks by Mockton. He the procuded to another falacy: Argumentum ad populum. "Since most people think it's right, it must be right". --- Here's one of several interesting talks on the subject, if you're interested on the data: https://youtu.be/ppQl6KYyMqA?t=139 https://youtu.be/ppQl6KYyMqA?t=139
hobarrera 11y ago
Example of something imporperly addresse in the above link: Monckton: The earth is cooling Counter-argument: The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. Yet, during the last five years it has decreased noticeably, but we haven't drastically reduced emissions. Even if we altered emissions radically, the latency it would have on the global temperature is by far more than a few years.