quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I think your analogy is much more faulty than tranceaholic's one. Let's look at the basic premises: 1) Carbon dioxide is better at absorbing heat than other major gases in our atmosphere like oxygen and nitrogen. 2) Carbon dioxide amount in our atmosphere has increased by about 40% since 1850. 3) There has not been an increase in natural emissions of carbon dioxide. 4) There has been a significant increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. 5) Mean global temperature has shown a slight increase since it started to be measured. Therefore we may conclude that it is likely that carbon dioxide increase in atmosphere should cause global warming, and that conclusion is also supported with evidence. The evidence shown is so far shakey, but since there is no other evidence to prove the opposite and since the evidence is among the lines of what we should expect from the first 4 premises, it is reasonable to conclude that global warming is a pretty realistic threat.

Temperatures have generally been increasing wherever they have been measured at roughly the same rate for over 300 years - far longer than human carbon dioxide emissions could be considered significant. They have not increased any faster since the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has begun to increase.

If we were to wrongly assume that carbon dioxide was responsible for the increase in temperature, then the increase of temperature should correlate proportionately with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. They do not. The hypothesis is refuted by observation, and therefore must be discarded in accordance with the proper scientific method.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter A false analogy, to be sure. A criminal attempting to enter a house is a known problem that can occur and has many times in the past and which also has a definite cause. A more analagous behavior would be to spend billions of dollars constructing the walls, ceilings, and floors out of gold ore because you hold the unfounded belief that it is the only material that will prevent aliens from teleporting you out of your house and abducting you, despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence that alien abductions have ever occurred nor is there any evidence to suggest that the proposed solution would address the problem in any way.

Your analogy makes no sense for two reasons:
* First, if there has never been any recorded alien abductions how would we know - or even suspect - that gold could somehow mess with the alien's teleportation beams?
* Second, your analogy involves two alternatives: encasing your house in gold and death. Clearly the first option is not available to most people, and considering the general worth of a human life (as inferred from differences in calculations on traffic safety near schools and retirement homes, or as inferred from the price tag of a hired murder) it will actually be more expensive to encase your house than to die. In contrast, with human pollution experience tells us that it is always more expensive to clean up than preventing the pollution in the first place. On the scale of global warming I would say that this difference in price tags will be enormous. Consider some of the harbor cities that would have to be abandoned: Manhattan, New Orleans, Amsterdam, Rome, Rio... Then add all the other cities that you can find in your atlas but didn't think of initially. You can take quite a lot of preemptive measures to fight CO_2 emissions for the amount of money that will be needed to relocate these millions (billions?) of people and their daily lives.

Now, you say that my analogy (which I gave purely for elucidation purposes) is clearly false as criminals gaining entry to houses happen occasionally, whereas the heating of the earth by human pollution never happened. Besides that a good deal of scientists see evidence that you are wrong on the last part, I would attack that reasoning by saying that the difference, which you see, is entirely due to a consciously stated difference in granularity of the two scenarios.
For instance, I have never personally had a criminal enter my house (unless one of my friends haven't told me everything that I should know), so with that kind of granularity it would make no sense for me to lock my door, as according to statistics a criminal coming to visit me must be an impossibility. On the other hand, we have plenty of examples of humans destroying eco systems through pollution in the past, so with that granularity it would make sense to consider global warming (as an instance of pollution) a possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Temperatures have generally been increasing wherever they have been measured at roughly the same rate for over 300 years - far longer than human carbon dioxide emissions could be considered significant. They have not increased any faster since the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has begun to increase. If we were to wrongly assume that carbon dioxide was responsible for the increase in temperature, then the increase of temperature should correlate proportionately with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. They do not. The hypothesis is refuted by observation, and therefore must be discarded in accordance with the proper scientific method.

Umm sorry, you're kinda wrong on that one.







The relation is actually pretty linear. And since the solar activity remained pretty constant over the ages, we must conclude that the problem is local. The only significant and observed change in atmosphere that is still going on (coal and CFCs are no longer in widespread use) has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions. And since CO2 fits nicely the profile of a greenhouse gas, it is logical to conclude that the increased emissions are the reason for increased temperature. Btw, you can also notice how the sunspot cycle does have some effect on temperature, because when the cycle was weaker, the earth was generally cooler. So if you'd interpolate to minimize the effects of that cycle, the connection is even more obvious.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0

This data is flawed. Urban and terrestrial areas are severely over-represented, and data is collected too infrequently to be considered an accurate measurement of actual global temperature.

NASA's unbiased satellite data, as well as data collected by weather balloons are unaffected by these anomalies and present a far more accurate description of global temperature:



Put simply: the increase in temperature within the last 20 years shown in the data you provided does not exist. It is an artifact of the improper and unscientific methodology used to collect those data.

The global warming hypothesis fails to hold up to skeptical analysis. Any belief in it at this juncture can only be classified as faith.

There is a concensus in the scientific community that there is global warming. Sorry I don't have any fancy charts to prove it.

During the 80's and early 90's the conservatives poo pooed the mounting scientific evidence of global warming as liberal crazies. Now if you press them on it they say that even if it is occurring it could be just a natural change unrelated to man's pollution. After the polar caps melt and the world is thrown into global catastrophe they'll be saying why don't you liberals stop winning that you warned us and think of a way to get us out of the mess we're in. Who knows maybe they'll be showing us graphs that prove we're really ok even though were up to our necks in water.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Your analogy makes no sense for two reasons: * First, if there has never been any recorded alien abductions how would we know - or even suspect - that gold could somehow mess with the alien's teleportation beams?

There is a precisely equal body of evidence that gold interferes with alien teleportation technology and that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would halt global warming. In both cases, there is precisely no evidence. In fact, in both cases, there is no reliable evidence that the supposed problem to be solved even exists. By the definition of "prevent" one cannot prevent something unless it would have otherwise occurred. Since we have no sound basis upon which to posit that either alien abductions or global warming will occur, any endeavor of ours to prevent them is, deductively, an exercise in futility.

quote:

* Second, your analogy involves two alternatives: encasing your house in gold and death. Clearly the first option is not available to most people, and considering the general worth of a human life (as inferred from differences in calculations on traffic safety near schools and retirement homes, or as inferred from the price tag of a hired murder) it will actually be more expensive to encase your house than to die. In contrast, with human pollution experience tells us that it is always more expensive to clean up than preventing the pollution in the first place. On the scale of global warming I would say that this difference in price tags will be enormous. Consider some of the harbor cities that would have to be abandoned: Manhattan, New Orleans, Amsterdam, Rome, Rio... Then add all the other cities that you can find in your atlas but didn't think of initially. You can take quite a lot of preemptive measures to fight CO_2 emissions for the amount of money that will be needed to relocate these millions (billions?) of people and their daily lives. Now, you say that my analogy (which I gave purely for elucidation purposes) is clearly false as criminals gaining entry to houses happen occasionally, whereas the heating of the earth by human pollution never happened. Besides that a good deal of scientists see evidence that you are wrong on the last part, I would attack that reasoning by saying that the difference, which you see, is entirely due to a consciously stated difference in granularity of the two scenarios. For instance, I have never personally had a criminal enter my house (unless one of my friends haven't told me everything that I should know), so with that kind of granularity it would make no sense for me to lock my door, as according to statistics a criminal coming to visit me must be an impossibility. On the other hand, we have plenty of examples of humans destroying eco systems through pollution in the past, so with that granularity it would make sense to consider global warming (as an instance of pollution) a possibility.

It seems to me that your argument regarding granularity is flawed by the same leap of faith which has plagued all of your arguments to this point. Although it may be true that no criminal has ever attempted to enter your house, you must surely be aware that there are criminals, and that in the general course of their activities they sometimes attempt to enter houses belonging to people who do not want them to enter, for illicit purposes. If you were unable to make the connection that this means there is a possibility that some such crimilar may attempt to enter a particular house - such as your own - at some indeterminite time in the future, then you would be lacking a fundamental reasoning skill to associate objects of similar properties with actors and actions known to be associated with some of those objects.

However, the relationship between human destruction of ecosystems and the so-called global warming threat is not an example of this type of reasoning. Rather, it is a fallacy of composition. The biosphere consists of, among other things, a large number of distinct ecosystems. It is fallacious, however, to assume that the biosphere itself has the same properties and simplicity of its constituent parts. Therefore, it would be fallacious to deduce that since human beings have destroyed ecosystems as a result of their introduction of pollutants, they could likewise destroy or severely alter the biosphere by a similar process.

If the utility of a particular course of action is properly measured as a cost/benefit ratio, then the utility of measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is extremely low, as the costs are outrageously high and the benefits, so far as reliable scientific evidence suggests, are nonexistent.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow There is a concensus in the scientific community that there is global warming. Sorry I don't have any fancy charts to prove it. During the 80's and early 90's the conservatives poo pooed the mounting scientific evidence of global warming as liberal crazies. Now if you press them on it they say that even if it is occurring it could be just a natural change unrelated to man's pollution. After the polar caps melt and the world is thrown into global catastrophe they'll be saying why don't you liberals stop winning that you warned us and think of a way to get us out of the mess we're in. Who knows maybe they'll be showing us graphs that prove we're really ok even though were up to our necks in water.

There is no consensus in the scientific community.

Even if there were a consensus, however, it would mean nothing. Scientific "consensus" has proven incorrect many times throughout history, and with the amount of junk science floating around these days I suspect it will be even more frequently in the future.

even if there were some consensus, pollution always seems to come from *another* country.

look at Sweden spending its pollution control money on Poland due to acid rain. (it stings a bit)

China is slowly fogging Japan's skies. (and many of their own cities)

Accountability is crucial to fixing the problem. And countries that cant even muster Western standards arent going to spend their profits helping the environment by making less money for pollutions sake|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter There is no consensus in the scientific community. Even if there were a consensus, however, it would mean nothing. Scientific "consensus" has proven incorrect many times throughout history, and with the amount of junk science floating around these days I suspect it will be even more frequently in the future.

Why don't we simplify things?

A: We could ignore the possibility of global warming and continue increase harmful pollution that is known to deplete the ozone layer. If we’re right this will lead to global warming and an environmental catastrophe. If we’re wrong we will end up with a more polluted envirionment.

or

B: We could work with the international community to all lower our harmful emissions. If we are wrong about global warming we'll just have deal with cleaner air and water. Is that such a bad thing? Sounds like a win win situation to me.

I'm not comfortable gambling on our planet's future.

I remember in the early to mid 80s there was going to be a hole in the atmosphere from all the hair spray people were using and we were all going to burn to a crisp. Fear of global warming ended the big hair era!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter There is a precisely equal body of evidence that gold interferes with alien teleportation technology and that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would halt global warming. In both cases, there is precisely no evidence. In fact, in both cases, there is no reliable evidence that the supposed problem to be solved even exists. By the definition of "prevent" one cannot prevent something unless it would have otherwise occurred. Since we have no sound basis upon which to posit that either alien abductions or global warming will occur, any endeavor of ours to prevent them is, deductively, an exercise in futility.

It seems that we disagree fundamentally here. There is an as of yet non-refuted scientific theory that relates the amount of CO_2 in the atmosphere with the amount of heat leaving earth through it. Furthermore, there is an as of yet non-refuted theory which entails that the amount of CO_2 in the atmosphere rises as humans releases it. If you want to say that global warming is not taking place, and that pollution by the human race is not accelerating this, then the burden of evidence is upon you - just as it would be if you stated that there is no such thing as gravity. On the other hand, there is no scientific theory of how teleportation beams would work (in fact there's not even scientific consensus as to *what* is needed for drawing the conclusion that teleportation have happened), and there is no scientific theory that predicts that gold would be a better barrier than, say, led for stopping teleportation beams.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It seems to me that your argument regarding granularity is flawed by the same leap of faith which has plagued all of your arguments to this point. Although it may be true that no criminal has ever attempted to enter your house, you must surely be aware that there are criminals, and that in the general course of their activities they sometimes attempt to enter houses belonging to people who do not want them to enter, for illicit purposes. If you were unable to make the connection that this means there is a possibility that some such crimilar may attempt to enter a particular house - such as your own - at some indeterminite time in the future, then you would be lacking a fundamental reasoning skill to associate objects of similar properties with actors and actions known to be associated with some of those objects. However, the relationship between human destruction of ecosystems and the so-called global warming threat is not an example of this type of reasoning. Rather, it is a fallacy of composition. The biosphere consists of, among other things, a large number of distinct ecosystems. It is fallacious, however, to assume that the biosphere itself has the same properties and simplicity of its constituent parts.

Three objections: First. There's no reason why my argument should apply to the entire biosphere, as only parts of it need to be affected by global warming, for that to be a disaster. Second, no eco system can really be viewed as isolated, and thus all the eco systems that the biosphere is compared to are just as complicated as the biosphere.
Third, I do not propose that the biosphere has the exact same properties as it's constituent parts, and do not assume it to be a simple composition of eco systems. I'm saying that the biosphere is a delicate system of interconnecting parts, which all exist in a mess of interdependencies among each other - just like it's the case of individual eco systems. I don't see why this comparison would be any different than that of comparing one specific house with another. If your objection is that we have no evidence of other complete biospheres which have been destroyed by human pollution, then you know as well as I that battling global warming will and can never be suggested to be a good case - until we have destroyed the biosphere, that is. It's just that some of us don't want to wait for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If the utility of a particular course of action is properly measured as a cost/benefit ratio, then the utility of measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is extremely low, as the costs are outrageously high and the benefits, so far as reliable scientific evidence suggests, are nonexistent.

How would you find the other utility? The one where we do nothing and catastrophe is indeed coming? It would be much worse. That's my point. It doesn't matter if the risk of global warming being a concrete phenomena is as low as 10%, as long as the difference in utilities for the two scenarios is as extreme as it is, the rational choice *is* to do something.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil I remember in the early to mid 80s there was going to be a hole in the atmosphere from all the hair spray people were using and we were all going to burn to a crisp. Fear of global warming ended the big hair era!

What you're talking about is the hole in the ozone layer. It did take place, and it did grow larger and larger. Only it was over Antarctica and Switzerland, so you wouldn't have noticed. However, now that final years of solid pollution with CFC gases have reached the ozone layer, and only small amounts are being released, we are seeing a strengthening of the ozone layer - just as predicted by those doomsday scientists.