Are deniers in the evolution and global warming camps the same people?

how timely!!

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/H...s+unreliable/5847032/story.html#ixzz1gTUZsLes

 

And we know that deniers - either through dishonesty of sheer ignorance - like to build strawman arguments. Reducing risk of harm by controlling one factor of a complex system is not "controlling" that system. Pointing out that fundamental error is not "splitting hairs".

No one has suggested we can control the earth's climate. That is nonsense.

However - one of the factors that impacts upon the earth's climate - ie. the increase in concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses - can, and should be controlled to reduce the risk of future negative impacts

 

We are not discussing weather. We are discussing climate. Read Poor debater's post again. Carefully this time.

 

You're saying the Mona Lisa is a bad painting, because you can't see the skin cells on her face, and since her face is composed of skin cells, the likeness can't be good unless you can see those cells. I'm saying if you need to see skin cells, you're in a completely different ballgame. Weather is not climate.

We know CO2 aborbs infrared, and we know at what frequencies it absorbs and how much. We know the same for methane, N2O, O3, H2O, and CFCs. We know how much energy the Sun emits. We know how much heat water can hold. We know how much energy it takes to evaporate water, and how much is released when it condenses. We know how much sunlight the Earth reflects, and where. We know where ocean currents are and how much water they move. We know the history of anthropogenic emissions, both gases and aerosols. We know how infrared emission depends on temperature. We know how atmospheric temperature varies with altitude and with latitude. We know how the Coriolis force works, and how it drives circulation in the ocean and air. We know how much water expands when it is heated. We know how atmospheric pressure changes with altitude. We know how atmospheric turbulence causes vertical mixing, and by how much. We know how atmospheric convection works, and how it changes with humidity. We know how sea ice forms, moves, breaks, and melts. We know how sea ice formation depends on salinity. We know the thermodynamics of heat transfer. We know how water evaporates from soil, and how that changes with vegetation cover.

Why isn't that "basic", in your view?

 

Why? Don't they have dictionaries in Australia?

I don't have to look up "heap"...You just spelled it for me. Why don't you look up the meaning of the word "typo"?
Large numbers of species are doomed to extinction, that is how evolution works.
As the climate warms, food production will increase. Food prices will go down.

Let me try and simplify this for you:

You have just undermined your argument that, "We cannot CONTROL weather. We cannot CONTROL climate," by stating that, "actions under our CONTROL do INFLUENCE and AFFECT the global temperature and climate."

You seem to be conflicted in your argument. So which is it? If we can CONTROL the amount of anthropogenic emissions we produce, and anthropogenic emission AFFECT the global temperature which in turn INFLUENCES climates around the planet, can we not CONTROL the climate? The obvious answer is yes. Unless of course the emissions we produce really don't AFFECT global temperatures.

Likewise, if we cannot CONTROL weather and climate, then you are admitting that your AGW Theory is bogus.

 

That is correct.

We cannot CONTROL weather. We cannot CONTROL climate. But actions under our CONTROL do INFLUENCE and AFFECT the global temperature and climate

No. We cannot control the climate.

We can control one factor out of the many factors that influence climate.

Anthropogenic emissions are currently negatively impacting upon climate. We need to reduce these emissions to minimise the negative impact.

I think you really need to find that dictionary and look up what the words "affect" and "control" mean.

 

I think you really need to find that dictionary and look up what the words "affect" and "control" mean, because you are arguing with yourself.

If we cannot control the climate, then you are admitting that AGW conspiracy theory is wrong. If we can control the amount of CO2 then we can affect global temperatures. If we can affect temperatures, then we can affect the weather and the climate which means we can control weather and climate.

 

No. That is not what it means. These are simple English words. Why are you having so much trouble with them?


Let's try another approach:
Assuming you are not suicidal - are you able to control the time and means of your eventual death?

No - you can't

However - if you are a heavy smoker - your habit is likely to impact upon your health and increase the risk of a shortened lifespan.

If you stop smoking - while you still have no control over the time and means of your eventual death - you will decrease the risk of that action having a negative impact on your lifespan.

Nobody is claiming we can control the climate. But the earth should try to cut down on its smoking.

 

yes, we 'know' all these things yet we can't predict a single event that they will cause.

just yesterday, two major scientists came out and admitted that their forecasts were completely useless, these forecasts spanned twenty years.

 

so you are saying that smoking doesn't cause early death? news to the tobacco industry, can they get a refund on all the lawsuits?

 

I swear to God that most deniers have reading comprehension problems.
Another example:

 

Sure we can. Using such information, we can predict with great confidence that increasing CO2 in the air will cause global warming. This has been observed. We can predict that increasing CO2 in the air will cause stratospheric cooling. This has been observed. We can predict that increasing CO2 in the air will cause nighttime temps to rise faster than daytime temps. This has been observed. We can predict that increasing CO2 in the air will cause winter temps to rise faster than summer temps. This has been observed. We can predict that increasing CO2 in the air will cause increasing downwelling infrared radiation. This has been observed. We can predict that increasing CO2 in the air will cause decreasing upwelling infrared radiation. This has been observed.

More specific predictions can be made as well. For example, we can predict that sea ice in the Arctic will decline, but not in the Antarctic (at least not for a while yet). This has been observed. We can predict that tropical storms will become more intense, with more intense precipitation. This has been observed. We can predict greater incidence of both flood and drought as the hydrological cycle intensifies. This has been observed. We can predict increasing sea levels as the oceans warm and land-based ice melts. This has been observed.

They must have been meteorologists. Climatologists have an excellent track record of being right.

 

I think your lack of understanding makes it perfectly understandable as to why you are arguing against yourself. In fact your example with smoking proves my thesis.

 

Or they are being deliberately dense.

I am not sure which is worse. But there are best ignored.

 

do so at your own risk.

seems to me if you were so overly concerned about the earth turning into a big ol ball of fire, you would look at why you are not suceeding in convincing me, listen to my objections and learn from them.

but this isn't ABOUT the earth warming...it's about how much power you can grab, how much money the top people can get.

 

Exactly right. And everytime I try to explain to some genius that reducing emissions in order to minimise the risk of future negative impacts is not actually "controlling the weather" - the money just comes rolling in! ...k'ching!!!


What a scam!!! All that me and Tim Flannery and Al Gore had to do was convince every scientist on the planet to go along with us, and then set up some big heaters to ensure that the planets glacial mass balance decreased, sea levels rose and the satellite, surface and ocean temperaures and increased. Oh - and we made the stratospheric temperature decrease too. Somehow. But then we sit back and watch the cash roll in!! Pretty sweet deal. Yet somehow you are sooo smart to see through it all!!!

 

now see, that WOULD be man made warming...

but barring that, you haven't proven that any changes in the 'climate' is caused by man.

 

1. FACT: The oceans are warming, and ocean temperatures are rising fastest at the surface. So the heat is coming from above, not from below.

2. What's above the oceans, that can cause heating? (a) atmosphere, via greenhouse effect; and (b) the Sun. Which of these two is the cause?

3. If it's the Sun, then we're getting more heat during the day, and daytime temps should be rising fastest. If it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. FACT: nighttime temps are rising faster than daytime temps, by a wide margin.

PROOF OF GREENHOUSE #1.

4. If it's the Sun, then the Earth is getting more energy and the whole planet should be warming, top to bottom. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, which means less heat escapes to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming along with everything else. But if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling. FACT: the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend for as far back as global records go ( about 1958 ).

PROOF OF GREENHOUSE #2.

4. If it's greenhouse, we should be seeing an increase in downwelling infrared in the greenhouse bands, as seen from the surface. FACT: this has been observed.

PROOF OF GREENHOUSE #3.

5. If it's greenhouse, we should be seeing a decrease in upwelling infrared in the greenhouse bands, as viewed from space. FACT: this has been observed.

PROOF OF GREENHOUSE #4.

Say, injest? That guy who told you there was no proof of man-made global warming? He lied to you. He's the one with the political agenda.

 

and what makes you think that someone 'told' me?

are you implying that I am stupid and can't think for myself?

 

there is no problem with thinking for yourself, but when provided with factual information that the opinion you have formed is erroneous, it is usually a good idea to review your opinion

 

Not sure that anything we do here on earth can overcome nature but at the same time, what can it hurt if we use less gas while driving, emit less smog, throw away less garbage and just use our heads when it comes to things we can be a bit more economically conservative about. Just seems like common sense to me?

At the same time, I don't see evolution as some single theory but as part of the theory of everything. Anyone who follows currently preferred theories on how everything came to be can only wonder and marvel at the incredible luck we have had here on earth in order to eventually come to where we are now. With the possible variations of possibilities for our life being less than a millionth of a millionth or alot less, I can only tend to think that there is some higher power intelligence who played a role in us coming into being. YMMV, of course.

 

If you can't explain the evidence, please don't insult our intelligence by pretending it doesn't exist. No proof? That's just false. And you should know it by now.

 

What is causing it then?

 

By measuring the gasses present in ice cores taken from places like Greenland scientists are able to get a snapshot of the gas content in that area at that time. It does not give an accurate account of gas in the air elsewhere in the world so they average it using models generally accepted today. Carbon gasses deplete ozone which causes the hole in the artic areas which thus cause ice melting and sea level rising.
The use of "averaging" and using "models" acceptable today skew the results of the models they use to recreate the 'future" snapshot of weather patterns. I could give a lecture on the math of "chaos" and non-linear physics but suffice it to say the longterm models are impossible to accurately produce. Spit and froth all you want, time will prove me right. Still, the basis of what I am saying is this, we should lessen emissions because even though we don't know what will happen, what could happen is scary enough to justify it.

 

I'm thinking not really more than now because the magnetic fields are of a permanent nature and won't just 'go away' although, as the video points out, there may be additional fields that pop up.