Global Warming for Dummies

[Miss Shelby]

I am not a learned individual in the sciences and what I know about global warming can be put on the head of a pin. All's I know is that the left wing moon bats think that end of the world is emminent due to it, moreso than some religious rapture nuts do. And the right wing cultists have nothing more to say in retort to this than 'their science is junk'

So is there anyone who can give me a course for el tardos? Something understandable and concise?

thanks.

[Watser?]

Could you give an example of a 'left wing moon bat' who thinks the end of the world is coming because of Global Warming?

All I have ever heard anybody claim is that the climate will change because of it. Which could have bad, very bad or even catastrophic effects on human and other life. Some animals and plants might become extinct because of it and thousands or even millions of people may die from natural disasters. But the Earth will certainly not become unfit for life in general.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Could you give an example of a 'left wing moon bat'

yeah, there's some group of scientists that believe that but I forget their name. I guess, to satisfy you curiosity, I'm gonna hafta go dig these goof balls names up, though? Why didn't you ask for examples of right wing religious cultisist, just by the way?

To the rest:

I hope you can overlook my use of hyperbole and see my question through it.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Why didn't you ask for examples of right wing religious cultisist, just by the way?

Because there are lots of them and they're well-known?

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by Naruto

Because there are lots of them and they're well-known?

Al Gore isn't well known? Shit he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner, you peeps oughta know him.

Look, I'm not trying to diss the left so you who are getting hypersensitive about can ya quit with it already? You're proving that there are some wingnuts in that camp.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Al Gore isn't well known? Shit he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner, you peeps oughta know him.

Look, I'm not trying to diss the left so you who are getting hypersensitive about can ya quit with it already? You're proving that there are some wingnuts in that camp.

Al Gore said the world is going to end?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Why didn't you ask for examples of right wing religious cultisist, just by the way?

Because they are all over the internets.

Originally Posted by yguy

I would suggest that anyone who claims to be able to provide such is either hopelessly deluded or a liar. A visit to climateaudit.org will give you an idea of how much room for error there is in just interpreting the data - most of that being proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) which is unverifiable.

Bottom line: nobody knows what's going on. Therefore I suggest you view with the greatest skepticism the claims which will give government the most power over your life.

See, here's one.

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Al Gore isn't well known? Shit he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner, you peeps oughta know him.

Yeah, he won the Nobel Peace Prize because he is a left wing moon bat who thinks that end of the world is emminent due to it is what you are saying then?

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

Look, I'm not trying to diss the left so you are getting hypersensitive about can ya quit with it already? You're proving that there are some wingnuts on that side of the camp.

How are we proving that exactly?

[ceptimus]

There are a few facts that prop up a whole lot of hype:

• Average temperatures are increasing - evidenced by weather records and weather satellites.
• Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels are increasing.
• Polar ice and glaciers are retreating.

No one knows, for sure, how much of the global warming is natural, and how much is due to human influence.

The scientific consensus seems to be that weather patterns will become more extreme, and that some sea level rise is likely. The estimates for sea level rise range between almost negligible (a few inches) and catastrophic (many major cities underwater within our lifetimes).

[fragment]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

There are a few facts that prop up a whole lot of hype:

• Average temperatures are increasing - evidenced by weather records and weather satellites.
• Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels are increasing.
• Polar ice and glaciers are retreating.

There's also the radiation absorption properties of carbon dioxide and other gases, which have been measured very precisely, and the basic physics of radiative transfer in the atmosphere. Taken together these two predict surface warming as a result of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The uncertainties come from trying to include other factors - other external influences on climate and the natural variability in such a complicated system - and from trying to say with more detail how much warming, where and when should be expected (and how much other climate factors, like precipitation, could be affected).

No one knows, for sure, how much of the global warming is natural, and how much is due to human influence.

This is a pretty vague statement that tends to underplay the state of the science. Compare it with the statement "No one knows, for sure, how many cancers are caused by smoking and how many by other factors". That's basically true, but gives an erroneous impression that there is a lack of certainty in the link between smoking and cancer.

Is it nice of me to suspect the question was dishonest?

*peruses*

Nope, right again!

[yguy]

Originally Posted by fragment

This is a pretty vague statement

Pardon me, but the failure of that statement to confirm your faith hardly makes it vague. On the contrary, it is a perfectly clear, accurate and proper admission of ignorance.

Compare it with the statement "No one knows, for sure, how many cancers are caused by smoking and how many by other factors". That's basically true, but gives an erroneous impression that there is a lack of certainty in the link between smoking and cancer.

Do I really need to explain to you how you've contradicted yourself here?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

Pardon me, but the failure of that statement to confirm your faith hardly makes it vague. On the contrary, it is a perfectly clear, accurate and proper admission of ignorance.

Global Warming is not a faith little boy, but the denial of it certainly is.

Originally Posted by yguy

Do I really need to explain to you how you've contradicted yourself here?

Please do

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

So is there anyone who can give me a course for el tardos? Something understandable and concise?

I would suggest that anyone who claims to be able to provide such is either hopelessly deluded or a liar. A visit to climateaudit.org will give you an idea of how much room for error there is in just interpreting the data - most of that being proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) which is unverifiable.

Bottom line: nobody knows what's going on. Therefore I suggest you view with the greatest skepticism the claims which will give government the most power over your life.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by yguy

I would suggest that anyone who claims to be able to provide such is either hopelessly deluded or a liar. A visit to climateaudit.org will give you an idea of how much room for error there is in just interpreting the data - most of that being proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) which is unverifiable.

Bottom line: nobody knows what's going on. Therefore I suggest you view with the greatest skepticism the claims which will give government the most power over your life.

I suppose this is valid enough. I guess wanting to put as little time and effort into learning and understanding it as possible isn't exactly the right way to go about it. Thanks. If anyone else has any sources they feel useful, I'd like to see them. thanks also ceptimus.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

I suppose this is valid enough.

I'm not sure why you think so. The claim that proxy data is unverifiable is just false, and the idea that any scientific claim gives government power over your life is ludicrous. A scientific claim might provide evidence in support of a policy that gives power to a government... or it might not. At first glance, there's no particular reason why someone couldn't accept all the scientific claims regarding global warming and still think government control is the wrong way to deal with it. In fact, here's a libertarian who was previously skeptical of global warming, but who has since changed his mind. Keep in mind that a skeptic is someone who can be convinced by evidence.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by fragment

I'm not sure why you think so. The claim that proxy data is unverifiable is just false,

I dare you or anyone else to back up that claim.

and the idea that any scientific claim gives government power over your life is ludicrous. A scientific claim might provide evidence in support of a policy that gives power to a government... or it might not.

True enough. After all, Hitler's anti-semitic propaganda never got any Jews killed by itself.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

I dare you or anyone else to back up that claim.

Here you are fragment.

Not that there will be much point. I think you will need the not-yet-existing shifting goalpost smilie later.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by fragment

I'm not sure why you think so.

I wasn't talking about your source. I was referring to your advice to be skeptical.

[Ari]

A bit of it is that some species on the planet has decided to dig up massive amounts of carbon that hasn't been in circulation for millions of years and turn it into gas. This gas (CO2) is one of a set of gasses that blocks the escape of heat into space causing the green house effect. This blanket of gas will cause the average temp to slightly rise and over time it will change weather patterns and melt icecaps. Possibly causing some annoyance to the species that decided to dig up the carbon in the first place.

Very few people think the world is coming to an end, that's normally a strawman made up by the "right" to discredit the science. The question is how much will the environment change, especially if current trends continue.

Originally Posted by yguy

Bottom line: nobody knows what's going on. Therefore I suggest you view with the greatest skepticism the claims which will give government the most power over your life.

The funny thing is, you would think that if nobody knows what's going on then 1) people shouldn't be claiming global warming doesn't exist and 2) Pumping crap into the air probably isn't a good idea in general.

Of course it really comes down to money, as long as there is profit and power in pumping crap into the air, people will deny it's a problem.

[Listener]

Originally Posted by Ari

A bit of it is that some species on the planet has decided to dig up massive amounts of carbon that hasn't been in circulation for millions of years and turn it into gas. This gas (CO2) is one of a set of gasses that blocks the escape of heat into space causing the green house effect. This blanket of gas will cause the average temp to slightly rise and over time it will change weather patterns and melt icecaps. Possibly causing some annoyance to the species that decided to dig up the carbon in the first place.

Very few people think the world is coming to an end, that's normally a strawman made up by the "right" to discredit the science. The question is how much will the environment change, especially if current trends continue.

The funny thing is, you would think that if nobody knows what's going on then 1) people shouldn't be claiming global warming doesn't exist and 2) Pumping crap into the air probably isn't a good idea in general.

Of course it really comes down to money, as long as there is profit and power in pumping crap into the air, people will deny it's a problem.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by yguy

Bottom line: nobody knows what's going on. Therefore I suggest you view with the greatest skepticism the claims which will give government the most power over your life.

[Miss Shelby]

Geez La Fucking Weeze. Why did I not see this coming?

[Miss Shelby]

How are we proving that exactly?

you're more concerned about my meaningless use of hyperbole than you are about answering my goddamn question. Which tells me, at the very least, you're hypersenistive about being a lefty or at least you don't like the perception that people think some on the left are nutty.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

you're more concerned about my meaningless use of hyperbole than you are about answering my goddamn question. Which tells me, at the very least, you're hypersenistive about being a lefty or at least being cristizied for it.

It was a pretty dumb question.

Followed up by some even dumber assertions.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

you're more concerned about my meaningless use of hyperbole

Curious, if it was meaningless, why did you use it?