Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made

cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made

Have you seen this one?  Interesting......

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html

Quote:
He finally came around to what other climate scientists have been spouting for years. Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, announced over the weekend that his much-publicized investigation into climate data has found that humans' production of carbon dioxide is causing the world to slowly warm up. And this process could speed up dramatically in the coming years.

Muller's conclusions attract special attention because of his vocal self-styling as a converted climate change skeptic. Muller criticized global warming studies for sloppy and self-serving data selection and a lack of transparency that obscured errors; he then lambasted fellow scientists for circling the wagons and calling any climate change deniers wrong. Muller says he's still upset that the American Physical Society declared the evidence for warming "incontrovertible" a few years ago in an official statement.

"We don't do things in science that are incontrovertible," Muller said in an interview with Yahoo News.

Muller took matters into his own hands and embarked on his own investigation into the data with his daughter Elizabeth and a team of scientists two years ago. His Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project attracted funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, the nonprofit outfit of a wealthy businessman who denies that global warming is happening. Three years later, Muller ended up surprising himself when his research confirmed everything those same studies that drew his skepticism concluded, and then some. Muller says his study's results are more reliable than many previous ones because he intentionally avoided the data pitfalls he objected to, such as only using a portion of the global temperatures available. (He expounds on his methods here.)

Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. One climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the Los Angeles Times he thinks posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science" and may do more to hurt the global warming cause than help it. But Muller wants to get feedback on his methods and to share his results with everyone, avoiding what he sees as a secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounded earlier climate change studies.

Though Muller is now entirely convinced that the Earth is warming due to man-made causes, he still expresses disdain for people who try to raise passions around the issue by pointing to local weather events, such as the drought scorching up America's Midwest right now, as proof of the phenomenon. (He attributes the drought to La Niña, a temporary cooling of the ocean.) The effects of global warming on local weather patterns are unknown, and even as two-thirds of the world has heated up, another one-third has shown a gradual cooling over the past 250 years, he says. The overall effect is a troubling global warming, but Muller has no patience for simplifications that stray from the truth.

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Muller is now wading into another controversy, by endorsing the process of natural gas extraction called fracking for developing countries, which tend to rely more on coal. Coal production creates more carbon dioxide, but fracking has also drawn its share of environmentalist critics.

"I believe the only kind of action that is sustainable is that which is profitable, and fortunately we can do that," he says. "We can become much more energy efficient."

 

I totally agree - only that which is profitable will be sustained.  If we can not find a profitable solution, we will see the human population drastically reduced.  I wouldn't hazard a guess how much of a reduction or if that would be good or bad.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I feel like

Vastet wrote:
I feel like icing on my cake.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about.

Are we editing quotes to reflect poorly on the author, now?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Human nature

 

 

being what it is we will act on climate change when the consequences of not doing so are widely perceived as being far worse than they'd be if we continued to act as we are. Perhaps the thing that bothers me most is that the cat-fight over climate has led people to ignore habitat loss. We are overseeing the obliteration of hundreds of thousands of species. The cognitive frailties of humanity, our inability to see the big picture, our mental short cuts are going to have an unpleasant ending. 

Still. I console myself with the knowledge that when the worm turns, it will turn completely. I think there will be a revision of the way we live. And there's debate on this topic. People are beginning to care. And people do love nature. P'raps what's coming is the multiplicity of disaster we simply had to have. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


aquariusmediaaamar
Posts: 3
Joined: 2012-08-10
User is offlineOffline
 Hi,We are (Human Being)

 Hi,

We are (Human Being) are responsible for climate change and global warming. I am also satisfied with it.

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj

cj wrote:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32663

I, for one, am NOT advocating going back to pre-industrial technology, but instead, moving ahead.This article Vastet posted is a possibility for yet another alternative to fossil fuels. Waste-to-energy might also work - the plant near Spokane, WA has been up and running for years and adds very little pollutants to the air. 

 

And I am fully supportive of such solutions, I agree with pretty much every measure you proposed in the early posts. Indeed, the only proposed solution I have rejected out of hand is Kyoto because I don't believe it would decrease GHG emissions one iota and would simply serve to charge the US money and give it to petty dictators. And a few other things I have suggested would not be particularly effective but don't necessarily oppose.

But the reality is that if the fear mongers are right, such steps are nowhere near large enough to curb global GHG emissions enough to prevent global warming. So the most sensible approach is to find solutions to the potential problems, rather than run around hysterically declaring the end of the world. The world isn't going to end, we will simply face a few challenges that may or may not require a change in our lifestyle. None of the challenges that we will face are impossible to deal with, and most of them really are not that difficult compared to some of the challenges our ancestors faced. 

So the sea level rises- it isn't going to happen overnight. People are not going to wake up one morning and discover their whole city is underwater short of another Katrina like set of circumstances where a levy fails flooding a city that we already know is below sea level. We are not going to wake up one day and discover it is impossible to grow any apples in Washington at all. If it does happen it will be a series of years where apple production in Washington is below normal, perhaps a decline in quality, which will encourage attempts to grow apples elsewhere.

Ok, it happens, we will survive it and deal with it. Humans have dealt with similar challenges in time periods where they didn't have the benefit of near instantaneous communication and nowhere near our technology or scientific knowledge.  

 

cj wrote:

Why don't we grow apples in Florida?

Because it isn't ideal for apples and citrus crops like oranges bring in much larger profits. Apples can be grown in Florida, there just isn't a point since they can't compete with northern apple states. 

http://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/1685/#b

cj wrote:

  Can we grow oranges in Maine?  Will we be able to grow oranges in Maine if the weather warms enough?  Don't know.

http://www.garden.org/foodguide/browse/fruit/citrus/1365

The National Gardening Association seems to believe it is possible to grow oranges in Maine now. The trees need to be moved inside during cold weather making it impractical for commercial farming (and really all but the most determined hobbyist). If it gets that much warmer, maybe someday in the far far future there will be orange plantations in Maine. Pretty sure I will be dead before that. Just an example of we may face challenges, but we can overcome them.   

 

cj wrote:

Can we gengineer plants that can grow in reduced light and warm temperatures - or that can grow above the arctic/antarctic circles?  Don't know.  Can we do it fast enough to feed the world?  Don't know.  Can we gengineer shellfish that can develop in water too acidic to form shells?  I would think that would be really tough given calcium chemistry.  Would shellfish that develop shells based on silicon or something else be edible?  Can we determine that and develop it in less than a century?  I just don't know.  

To feed the world worrying about tropical fruits is a waste of time. We don't feed the world with tropical fruits, we feed it with grains- corn, wheat, soy and rice. Worrying about the possible negative effects on those is far more relevant, and we can grow them pretty much anywhere as long as we are able to transport enough water.

The shellfish is a problem we might not be able to solve. We can prevent extinction of common varieties by farming them outside of the ocean in controlled environments, but if shellfish actually start going extinct lobster dinners will become significantly more expensive. Sad, but not really a big factor in feeding the world. I have not heard anyone propose a plausible solution, but from my understanding most believe that simply reducing GHG emissions now will not prevent the further acidification of the ocean. Am I wrong? 

 

cj wrote:
 

Yes, most industrialized nations will manage to cope - somehow.  Yes, the current situation for many non-industrialized nations, and those without massive natural resources, and those with marginal agricultural lands, is not a pretty sight now - and will only get worse.  When I mentioned massive die offs, it was with the thought of those countries being in the worse trouble. 

The best way to help third world countries is to help them turn into first world countries. That means letting them experience the industrial revolution, building fossil fuel power plants and using modern farming equipment to make their farms more efficient. Ironically, the best way to protect third world countries from GW is to encourage them to increase their GHG emissions.

 

cj wrote:

Am I being pessimistic, or a realist?  Don't know.  Not sure I want to know - I hope I am being overly pessimistic.

I think you are being pessimistic, but admittedly I am an optimist. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Vastet

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I feel like icing on my cake.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about.

Are we editing quotes to reflect poorly on the author, now?

Nope. That quote can be found here, in all its unedited glory:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29523

Ready to stop being an asshat yet?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And 2 degrees is hardly "we

"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis."

Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I feel like icing on my cake.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about.

Are we editing quotes to reflect poorly on the author, now?

Nope. That quote can be found here, in all its unedited glory: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29523 Ready to stop being an asshat yet?

I'm not the one being an 'asshat'. That was from around seven months ago. You think people can't research and become more confident of their knowledge in a subject in seven months?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"And 2 degrees

Vastet wrote:
"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis." Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Plenty of people have suggested just that. The issue is whether or not such predictions actually have scientific evidence to back them up.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Vastet

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis." Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Plenty of people have suggested just that. The issue is whether or not such predictions actually have scientific evidence to back them up.

 

The predictions that this scientist - the one who used to be a skeptic - said that the effects will be worse than the current predictions by other scientists.  If a previous skeptical scientist researches data he is comfortable with, revises the models to address the lack he saw in other models, and comes up with even worse future conditions, I would think that would cause most everyone to pay attention.

Granted, it is difficult if you are a lay person or hobbiest to sort through all the data.  Granted, no one wants to get all uptight over something that may not happen.  Granted, not every human on the planet will die.  A lot will.  And the effects will impact you and I in our high tech, industrialized nations.  I am not advocating the apocalypse, nor even an extinction.  I am concerned that we appear to prefer arguing rather than doing what we have the technology to do now.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ThunderJones

cj wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis." Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Plenty of people have suggested just that. The issue is whether or not such predictions actually have scientific evidence to back them up.

 

The predictions that this scientist - the one who used to be a skeptic - said that the effects will be worse than the current predictions by other scientists.  If a previous skeptical scientist researches data he is comfortable with, revises the models to address the lack he saw in other models, and comes up with even worse future conditions, I would think that would cause most everyone to pay attention.

Granted, it is difficult if you are a lay person or hobbiest to sort through all the data.  Granted, no one wants to get all uptight over something that may not happen.  Granted, not every human on the planet will die.  A lot will.  And the effects will impact you and I in our high tech, industrialized nations.  I am not advocating the apocalypse, nor even an extinction.  I am concerned that we appear to prefer arguing rather than doing what we have the technology to do now.

 

He changed his position on climate change, but did he really say they had evidence it would be extremely bad? Your quote implied that he merely personally believed it would be bad. I'm not extremely worried about Global Warming or Climate Change, but I don't deny that our climate IS changing. What says that it will be extremely serious negative change? I'm not taking a stance in opposition to GW, I just would like to see actual projections backed up by real world changes. We are well safe the most pessimistic scenarios from decades ago, are we not?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote: He

ThunderJones wrote:

He changed his position on climate change, but did he really say they had evidence it would be extremely bad? Your quote implied that he merely personally believed it would be bad. I'm not extremely worried about Global Warming or Climate Change, but I don't deny that our climate IS changing. What says that it will be extremely serious negative change? I'm not taking a stance in opposition to GW, I just would like to see actual projections backed up by real world changes. We are well safe the most pessimistic scenarios from decades ago, are we not?

 

From the article, towards the end:

 

Quote:

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

 

There is a link to his original data, if you feel so inclined.  Real world changes:

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/65446-greenland-ice-melting-hits-record-breaking-pace

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-nasa_n_1698129.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090302-glaciers-melting.html

And so on.  The data is not hard to find.  Yes, you can interpret the data any way you want.  You can tell me it isn't all that much change.  The changes will accelerate.  The albedo effect causes heat to be absorbed rather than reflected as ice and snow melt; increased water flow under glaciers as they melt; as the sea ice melts, glaciers will flow faster into the oceans; changes in the ocean currents due to salinity and temperature changes, etc. 

  http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1054159--people-forced-to-move-as-world-s-lowest-country-sinks-under-rising-seas

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3930765.stm

Quote:

Tidal surges flood their homes every fortnight, and recently hammered a 3m (9.8ft) hole in their concrete flood defences [sic].

 

Portions of New Orleans are already below sea level - largely due to the flood control on the Mississippi River.  But rising sea levels are going to be a big impact.  The Dutch are already working on their sea defenses.  Many very large cities are not that far above sea level.  It won't be a big deal if you live in Denver, true.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for all the links,

Thanks for all the links, I'll look through them.

I've heard that after a certain temperature increase there is a feedback loop that could cause everything to get much worse (exponentially? idk), is that what you are talking about?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Thanks

ThunderJones wrote:

Thanks for all the links, I'll look through them.

I've heard that after a certain temperature increase there is a feedback loop that could cause everything to get much worse (exponentially? idk), is that what you are talking about?

 

Yes, the things I mentioned all contribute to melting ice and snow faster --- and faster. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:I'm not

ThunderJones wrote:
I'm not the one being an 'asshat'.

Yes, you inescapably ARE.

"That was from around seven months ago. You think people can't research and become more confident of their knowledge in a subject in seven months?"

You think someone can go from being completely ignorant on a subject to being an expert in 7 months?! ROTF

Guess we can get rid of schools. Clearly they are unnecessary if someone can turn absolute ignorance into an expert meteorologist without any education in 7 months.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Vastet

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis." Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Plenty of people have suggested just that. The issue is whether or not such predictions actually have scientific evidence to back them up.

Blatant lie. Point out someone here who did so.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:
I'm not the one being an 'asshat'.
Yes, you inescapably ARE. "That was from around seven months ago. You think people can't research and become more confident of their knowledge in a subject in seven months?" You think someone can go from being completely ignorant on a subject to being an expert in 7 months?! ROTF Guess we can get rid of schools. Clearly they are unnecessary if someone can turn absolute ignorance into an expert meteorologist without any education in 7 months.

Lol. Are you an expert meteorologist?

People can mistake their own knowledge on a subject. The arguments and evidence speak for themselves when in a discussion. You are the one who chooses to ignore discussion over insults and put-downs.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"And 2 degrees is hardly "we are all going to die" crisis." Funny how noone has yet suggested that global warming is the apocalypse.

Plenty of people have suggested just that. The issue is whether or not such predictions actually have scientific evidence to back them up.

Blatant lie. Point out someone here who did so.

I was responding to 'no-one'. It's not hard to see how I could have interpreted that as speaking of the scientific community as a whole. Be more clear, or merely point out that I misinterpreted you.

Regardless, even on this forum there have been insinuations of climate change as being highly dangerous. Is that not what the discussion is now about?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I feel like icing on my cake.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about.

Are we editing quotes to reflect poorly on the author, now?

Nope. That quote can be found here, in all its unedited glory: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29523 Ready to stop being an asshat yet?

 

So? I have not been arguing climatology with you, we have been arguing about farming and air conditioning, two subjects I do know a little about. Is there anywhere in this thread I have predicted what the climate will do? At most I have made the predictions of others knowledge and linked to their research papers and I have expressed skepticism of the worst case scenario predictions. Most of my argument in this thread has been that we have the ability to deal with the effects of GW and that cutting GHG emissions enough to make a substantial difference is unlikely to ever happen because of political reasons, none of those positions require extensive knowledge on climatology since my arguments remain the same whether the world warms 1 degree or 10. It requires knowledge of farming, of which I have a little, and knowledge of real estate and politics of which I have a lot since I have been professionally involved in both fields.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Lol. Are

ThunderJones wrote:
Lol. Are you an expert meteorologist?

People can mistake their own knowledge on a subject. The arguments and evidence speak for themselves when in a discussion. You are the one who chooses to ignore discussion over insults and put-downs.

Blatant lies and ridiculous assertions despite not even Beyond disputing the quote or its accuracy. You are actually worse than them. And you accuse me of making shit up. That's just rich.

You failed, give up before you look even more ridiculous than you already do.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yeah actually, predicting

@ Beyond
Yeah actually, predicting that climate change won't significantly affect the Southern US is you pretending you know what the fuck you are talking about, when you clearly don't and have admitted as much.

You also don't strike me as knowing much about farming or air conditioning, since everything you've said on the subject is simply wrong or completely unproven.

We do have the ability to deal with global warming, and it is not the apocalypse. That does not mean Texas and California won't be deserts in a hundred years.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:
Lol. Are you an expert meteorologist? People can mistake their own knowledge on a subject. The arguments and evidence speak for themselves when in a discussion. You are the one who chooses to ignore discussion over insults and put-downs.
Blatant lies and ridiculous assertions despite not even Beyond disputing the quote or its accuracy. You are actually worse than them. And you accuse me of making shit up. That's just rich. You failed, give up before you look even more ridiculous than you already do.

Not sure when I accused you of making 'shit' up. I remember saying that you don't generally back up your claims like you seem to desire others to. How many times have you, instead of responding to an actual post, insulted and ridiculed the author? I've seen it dozens of times so far. A short look through threads where you are engaged in some sort of back-and-forth shows this.

The reason I call you out on using that quote of Beyond's goes to the retarded anti-discussion it displays. Who the fuck cares if Beyond thinks he isn't an expert, what does that have to do with the actual raw arguments and evidence he uses? Is the evidence and logic not the same whether or not the person communicating them is an expert?

You can't even pretend that you are avoiding talking with people who you don't think you will get anywhere in a discussion with. You constantly chime back in with insults and stupid remarks.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote: You also don't

Vastet wrote:
You also don't strike me as knowing much about farming or air conditioning, since everything you've said on the subject is simply wrong or completely unproven.

Show me one comment I made on the subject that is wrong and I have not supported. Then provide a single source that provides evidence to the contrary of what I said. Meanwhile, I won't hold my breath. 

 

Vastet wrote:

We do have the ability to deal with global warming, and it is not the apocalypse. That does not mean Texas and California won't be deserts in a hundred years.

Oh so I am right. Thanks. That is all I have been arguing the whole thread is that GW isn't the end of the world and we can deal with it.

Texas and California have deserts now, so I have no reason to believe they won't still be deserts in 100 years. People will also continue to live in Texas and California in 100 years too. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Not sure

ThunderJones wrote:
Not sure when I accused you of making 'shit' up.

Right here, for one.

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I feel like icing on my cake.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about.

Are we editing quotes to reflect poorly on the author, now?

ThunderJones wrote:
I remember saying that you don't generally back up your claims like you seem to desire others to. How many times have you, instead of responding to an actual post, insulted and ridiculed the author?

Unless they insulted me first, it's exceptionally rare. Once a year maybe. And usually I apologise afterwards.

"The reason I call you out on using that quote of Beyond's goes to the retarded anti-discussion it displays."

An admission of ignorance is never ignored in debate, and you're a fool to insinuate it doesn't hurt his argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Supporting a claim with an

@ Beyond

Supporting a claim with an extremely limited survey is not supporting a claim. I don't have to do research or provide evidence it is wrong, because it isn't a standard of evidence in the first place. It is automatically called into question. You are automatically wrong, just by attempting to use non-evidence as evidence.

"Oh so I am right. Thanks. That is all I have been arguing the whole thread is that GW isn't the end of the world and we can deal with it."

If that was all you were arguing, there'd never have been an argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:@ Beyond

Vastet wrote:
@ Beyond Supporting a claim with an extremely limited survey is not supporting a claim. I don't have to do research or provide evidence it is wrong, because it isn't a standard of evidence in the first place. It is automatically called into question. You are automatically wrong, just by attempting to use non-evidence as evidence.

 

Someone apparently skipped statistics class. Unless you have a reason to question the methodology of the sample, there is no reason to believe that the results differ significantly from reality. There may be a few percentage points difference + or -, but far from your claim that "90%" of Americans don't have air conditioning. Unless you have a reason to believe the survey used unsound methodology and all the statisticians were substantially wrong in coming up with the margin of error or some kind of evidence that suggests the results are inaccurate, you have no case for summarily dismissing the data.

Of course, you are obviously smarter than everyone and know off the top of your head more about how many American households have air conditioning than people paid to determine it or someone like me who is in the business of inspecting houses. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
@ Beyond Supporting a claim with an extremely limited survey is not supporting a claim. I don't have to do research or provide evidence it is wrong, because it isn't a standard of evidence in the first place. It is automatically called into question. You are automatically wrong, just by attempting to use non-evidence as evidence.

 

Someone apparently skipped statistics class. Unless you have a reason to question the methodology of the sample, there is no reason to believe that the results differ significantly from reality. There may be a few percentage points difference + or -, but far from your claim that "90%" of Americans don't have air conditioning. Unless you have a reason to believe the survey used unsound methodology and all the statisticians were substantially wrong in coming up with the margin of error or some kind of evidence that suggests the results are inaccurate, you have no case for summarily dismissing the data.

Of course, you are obviously smarter than everyone and know off the top of your head more about how many American households have air conditioning than people paid to determine it or someone like me who is in the business of inspecting houses. 

 

I have no issue with the number of homes/apartments/condos that have air conditioning.  My issue is the number of people who don't turn them on - ever.  No matter how hot it is, because they can't afford to run them.

I don't know if stats for that number is available.  But it is far more relevant than the number of physical units.  That, and will/do we have the electrical capacity to run all those air conditioners?  Sometimes, sure.  All the time in all areas - don't know.  This summer I didn't hear of black/brown outs.  Maybe it isn't the issue it was a few years ago.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ThunderJones

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:
Not sure when I accused you of making 'shit' up.
Right here, for one.
ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I feel like icing on my cake.
Beyond Saving wrote:
I am too ignorant of climatology to even pretend to know what I am talking about.

Are we editing quotes to reflect poorly on the author, now?

Alright, here I admit I thought you were just being an ass. You have to admit from the context of this thread this certainly could not be distinguished from you editing quotes since you didn't cite or even put it into context. Since you explained where the quote was from this issue is cleared up.

I was wrong about that, you didn't make that up. I do think it is stupid to quote it as some kind of argument in your favor though.

Vastet wrote:
ThunderJones wrote:
I remember saying that you don't generally back up your claims like you seem to desire others to. How many times have you, instead of responding to an actual post, insulted and ridiculed the author?
Unless they insulted me first, it's exceptionally rare. Once a year maybe. And usually I apologise afterwards. "The reason I call you out on using that quote of Beyond's goes to the retarded anti-discussion it displays." An admission of ignorance is never ignored in debate, and you're a fool to insinuate it doesn't hurt his argument.

Sure it hurts his argument, if the quote applies as you seem to want to say it did.

But how does it hurt the actual logic, raw evidence, and actual points he makes? If you can point out flaws in the logic, evidence, or points than that is a whole different matter. That isn't what you did, though, is it? Instead you quote-mined as a substitute for a good counter-argument.

If you are completely ignorant of a subject, how does that affect the genuine validity of what you say? I understand that it does not lend credence to the acceptance of the argument, but how does that change anything about what the person actually said? Are the statistics and facts suddenly different because it was a layman presenting them? Even if you dispute these facts and statistics, just saying "you are a layman therefore this evidence is wrong" doesn't cut it.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
cj wrote: I have no issue

cj wrote:
 

I have no issue with the number of homes/apartments/condos that have air conditioning.  My issue is the number of people who don't turn them on - ever.  No matter how hot it is, because they can't afford to run them.

I don't know if stats for that number is available.  But it is far more relevant than the number of physical units.  That, and will/do we have the electrical capacity to run all those air conditioners?  Sometimes, sure.  All the time in all areas - don't know.  This summer I didn't hear of black/brown outs.  Maybe it isn't the issue it was a few years ago.

 

Agreed, having enough electric power is an issue we should be concerned about especially since so far renewable energy is not being built nearly fast enough to replace the fossil fuel plants we are decommissioning. It is an easy problem to solve in theory- simply build more power plants. In today's political climate which amounts to anti-energy on all sides anti-fossil fuel/nuclear on the left side and anti-wind/solar/bio on the right (although in Ohio at least wind is catching flack from the left too) I am not confident that we will meet our energy needs in the future without experiencing brown outs. 

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Agreed,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Agreed, having enough electric power is an issue we should be concerned about especially since so far renewable energy is not being built nearly fast enough to replace the fossil fuel plants we are decommissioning. It is an easy problem to solve in theory- simply build more power plants. In today's political climate which amounts to anti-energy on all sides anti-fossil fuel/nuclear on the left side and anti-wind/solar/bio on the right (although in Ohio at least wind is catching flack from the left too) I am not confident that we will meet our energy needs in the future without experiencing brown outs. 

 

Some of the objections I have heard about wind is the hazard to birds.  Here, it is the prairie chicken people are concerned about.  Until a survey was done and the numbers actually increase near the wind generators.  They are not certain why, but there is a definite increase in the population of birds.  Also, there has been a lack of birds injured or killed by the turbines.  The blades move so slowly the birds have plenty of time to dodge them.  So if you take into account the actual data, that should not be an issue.

The other technical problem is the irregularity of the power generated.  They haven't got the storage at the generator just right and so if the wind dies down, so does the power.  And the wind does die down - even in the midwest and even along the Columbia Gorge.

Solar has some problems about the heat generated around the arrays.  The super large mirror arrays hypothesized for installation out west apparently increase the local air temp a lot.  But I think we can do smaller solutions.  Covering roofs perhaps - houses, industrial buildings, mega malls, mega churches, trucks, trains.  There have been some successful experiments with parking lots in the southwest.  It gets hot out there, and they built covered parking, then covered the roof with solar panels.  Works well - no environment to ruin in a parking lot.  Here in Portland, where there was some concern we don't get enough sun, they experimented with parking meters that are solar powered.  They work just fine, summer and winter.  So solar doesn't have to be only in the deserts.

Bio?  Is it the air pollution?  The waste-to-energy plant near Spokane, WA often has zero (0) emissions.  Really.  Truly.  Not always, but you can stand in the control room and watch the meters and they will hit zero on occasion.  They have tours - if you are near there or ever go by there, you might want to check it out.  Spokane had to do something other than landfills - the area is a thin layer of soil over basalt.  After the Missoula Floods, most of the top soil was washed away.  There literally is no dirt deep enough to bury garbage for miles.  Waste-to-energy or shipping it out of the state were their only two options.  There is a huge landfill in Arlington, OR.  But it is not next door, and it was way more expensive to ship than to take a chance on the plant.  I understood that the shipping option was not off the table until after the plant was up and operational and the truly minimal air pollution proven.

Nuclear would be fine under two conditions.  1. The plants should be built to one plan so that if you are trained to operate one, you can operate any in the country.  (I understand this is what France has done.)  2. The spent fuel has to be safely disposed.  If either condition can not be met, then they won't be safe enough for me to sleep at night.

We will run out of fossil fuels.  I don't know when - a few hundred or a few thousand years and we will run out.  Not just what is easily accessible, but every last drop.  It is a finite resource for all intents and purposes.  We either start switching over now, or we switch over when it is an emergency.  Choices, we have.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Unless you have a

Quote:
Unless you have a reason to question the methodology of the sample,

I have plenty reason. No survey in existence, that I've seen, is in any way a reflection of reality. Until the sample of people surveyed literally uses a significant percentage of the population, it is unscientific and invalid. You can give me as many surveys as you want, and I'll even laugh at the ones that make sense because they are 99% projected information taken from a sample of less than 1% of the population. It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would pay them any mind at all. The very existence of people who refuse to take part in them completely invalidates any attempt to use them as evidence.

Give me some REAL proof. A census maybe. Or a peer reviewed study. Not some bs survey.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You have to admit from the

"You have to admit from the context of this thread this certainly could not be distinguished from you editing quotes since you didn't cite or even put it into context."

Why? What screwed up logic brings you to this conclusion? The only time I've EVER reworded something someone said, I explicitly add *fixed*, or some other obvious indicator that the OP was modified. I may be a world class asshole, especially if you are stupid or come off as stupid, but I don't and never have put words in people's mouths. That's crossing a line for which there is no return.

You and these asshats can call me lots of things, but you can't honestly say I ever put words in people's mouths or edited their content just to make them look bad.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3563
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is onlineOnline
         Hey Vastet

 

 

       Hey Vastet how's it going ?  Everything o-kee do-kee ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No. One of my best friends

No. One of my best friends is currently in the ICU. Though I'm sure you wanted to be funny, I'm, not in the mood to play. Sorry.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Quote:Unless

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
Unless you have a reason to question the methodology of the sample,
I have plenty reason. No survey in existence, that I've seen, is in any way a reflection of reality. Until the sample of people surveyed literally uses a significant percentage of the population, it is unscientific and invalid. You can give me as many surveys as you want, and I'll even laugh at the ones that make sense because they are 99% projected information taken from a sample of less than 1% of the population. It's absolutely ridiculous that anyone would pay them any mind at all. The very existence of people who refuse to take part in them completely invalidates any attempt to use them as evidence. Give me some REAL proof. A census maybe. Or a peer reviewed study. Not some bs survey.

You flunked math didn't you. 

It is the magic of a mathematical field called probability which when you have sufficient data allows you to draw estimates using a small sample to project what the total is and calculate a margin of error. The AHS has a 90% certainty (they even factor in the people who refuse). It saves you from the reality that in most cases it is impossible to verify each and every subject. That is why scientists can predict say how a drug is likely to interact with your body without giving that drug to each and every human when testing to see if it should be released. 

You might consider reading an old blog from Todangst on the subject, he is certainly smarter than me.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right?page=1 

 

Silly me, you obviously have no desire to face reality, here, have a gold star.

 

 

Wanna play poker some time?

 

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Actually no, I got straight

Actually no, I got straight A's. And your current claims are as ridiculous as many others. A small sampling is exceptionally subject to sample bias that any researcher would be completely unaware of. I've seen plenty of surveys which were demonstrably false, and refuse to acknowledge them as a valid source of information.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"You have to

Vastet wrote:
"You have to admit from the context of this thread this certainly could not be distinguished from you editing quotes since you didn't cite or even put it into context." Why? What screwed up logic brings you to this conclusion? The only time I've EVER reworded something someone said, I explicitly add *fixed*, or some other obvious indicator that the OP was modified. I may be a world class asshole, especially if you are stupid or come off as stupid, but I don't and never have put words in people's mouths. That's crossing a line for which there is no return. You and these asshats can call me lots of things, but you can't honestly say I ever put words in people's mouths or edited their content just to make them look bad.

I guess rewriting peoples posts as "blah blah blah" doesn't count as rewording (and essentially dismissing it completely with this change)?

BS makes a argument.

You guys go back and forth for a few posts.

BS makes a counter-argument to one of your posts.

You post a old quote-mined statement of his (which is not within context, nor cited for clarity. Can you see the confusion here?) as if it wins you the argument.

 

Don't you see the issue here? I'm really not trying to attack you, I just want to help honest discussion, which from my point of view you seem to be impeding, intentionally or not. Maybe I'm wrong, but it has seemed like it is usually you who starts the insults, and other people seem to be just replying in kind. Beyond in particular has always seemed civil, and attempting actual discussion, but after a few back and forth posts you seem to shut down the discussion (which from the outside, seemed productive. Is that not the case?). Why?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No. One of my

Vastet wrote:
No. One of my best friends is currently in the ICU. Though I'm sure you wanted to be funny, I'm, not in the mood to play. Sorry.

I'm sorry to hear that. Hope your friend gets well.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I guess rewriting peoples

"I guess rewriting peoples posts as "blah blah blah" doesn't count as rewording (and essentially dismissing it completely with this change)?"

Nope. Writing blah blah blah is ITSELF an indicator that I modified the text, coupled with my contempt for the text I'm ignoring. Which is always contemptible or trollish.

"BS makes a argument.

You guys go back and forth for a few posts.

BS makes a counter-argument to one of your posts.

You post a old quote-mined statement of his (which is not within context, nor cited for clarity. Can you see the confusion here?) as if it wins you the argument."

Fortunately that ain't what happened. I closed with the quote, after refuting his argument.

ThunderJones wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No. One of my best friends is currently in the ICU. Though I'm sure you wanted to be funny, I'm, not in the mood to play. Sorry.

I'm sorry to hear that. Hope your friend gets well.

Me too. Thanks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
This would be the back & forth bit

Vastet wrote:
Fortunately that ain't what happened. I closed with the quote, after refuting his argument.

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^Trollin to nowhere, fast.

^Trollin to nowhere, fast.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.