[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I see what you did there! 'Religion' implies lack of proof and relies entirely on faith.

However, that ship sailed when for months and years on end we had record breaking temperatures, month after month. And the amount of data is quite overwhelming. Raw, unadulterated, uncaring and unfeeling data.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cl ... ity+record

Where is your data, showing the opposite?

https://skepticalscience.com/80_graphs_ ... myths.html


And for the record I didn't have to show data to prove the opposite. All I really had to do was show that your source may be potentially flawed just like you're going to do with the one I posted.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4134 ... framalpha/


But since you got upset when I compared the activists of global warming to a religion allow me to point out that I wasn't denying it's existence I was simply comparing the dogmatic proponents of it those other saviors of our souls. Organized religion. You know the type. The ones who If you question their "findings" you become a heretic and hell, some of these faithful have gone so far as to call for the jailing of anyone in authority who doesn't act on their beliefs about climate change.

Another reason I equate it to a new religion is that the people who are the most vehement proponents of the phenomenon are mostly the people who decry organized religion but are still searching for something to believe in and unfortunately up till this latest iteration usually ended up in some cult drinking the Kool aide.

But, don't get me wrong I have no problem admitting that climate change exists. What I have a problem with is the incessant cries that we're the main cause of it and if we don't stop oil consumption immediately and give all our money to people who are going to save the world with green technology we're doomed. For the record the planet has gone through these warming and cooling periods for eons. So to say man is the cause of global warming could be considered little disingenuous.

Oh and for the record the numbers that 90% of "young people" believe in "man made" global warming is wildly inaccurate.

$1:

On climate change, about three-quarters of the public believes there is "solid evidence" that the Earth has been warming, and 53 percent believe it is attributable to human activity, according to the study. But that belief is most commonly held among millennials: 81 percent believe in global warming, and 65 percent believe that human activity is primarily to blame.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -november/

65% is a far cry from the 90% claimed and despite having it drilled into their heads in school and social media there's still a fairly large percentage of young people (millennial's) that don't believe we're the sole cause of climate change. So to continue to vilify everyone who doesn't agree with the man made cause of the problem is nothing more than selective fanaticism that makes the people who disagree even more pissed off an less likely to ever embrace the other sides view

[Coach85]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Coach85 Coach85:

When we price carbon, we know that it forces companies to reduce their output or buy more credits to maintain, but the effect of the reduction in carbon isn't known.

It is well known.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

It's not well known.

Nobody can tell you or I what will happen when the World reduces it's carbon output. Your link it pointless.

If someone can tell me that if we reduce our emissions by X amount, it will have X effect on climate change, I'm all ears.

There is no doubt in my mind that climate change exists and humans are responsible for a portion of that.

However, if I'm going to support a scheme worth billions, I think it's reasonable to ask what the outcome will be and if there isn't one, it's pointless.

[Thanos]

Another ten years of this kind of obvious change and the number of people who believe it's real will be about 95% across all ages and demographics. In the end the simple facts and the math of it won't care in the slightest about anyone's opinion.

From a fictional show, admittedly, but essentially true in reality. Most of the scientists already accept that we're long past the point of no return but for a variety of reasons, from personal to political, they don't say it out loud in order not to create a panic about something that can't be repaired:



There really is no way to avoid what's coming, any more than there is for the planet to step out of the way at the last second from an asteroid that has a 100% probability of hitting us. What we do here with these conversations is merely for our own amusement.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I see what you did there! 'Religion' implies lack of proof and relies entirely on faith.

However, that ship sailed when for months and years on end we had record breaking temperatures, month after month. And the amount of data is quite overwhelming. Raw, unadulterated, uncaring and unfeeling data.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cl ... ity+record

Where is your data, showing the opposite?

https://skepticalscience.com/80_graphs_ ... myths.html


And for the record I didn't have to show data to prove the opposite. All I really had to do was show that your source may be potentially flawed just like you're going to do with the one I posted.

Yes, you actually do. If you want to say the source is flawed, then you have to show where that comes from. Show us your data that proves your assertion. Show us the errors in hundreds of peer reviewed studies. I know how climate deniers operate, I've debunked enough of them on this site. I don't need sceptical science to show me how they do it.

I also didn't link to graphs, I linked to the data. The graph is a representation of the data collected, without interpretation. Which is why I love Wolfram Alpha. It's all there, for you to see.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4134 ... framalpha/

Interesting. But, how does it disprove the data?

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But since you got upset

I didn't. I just found it interesting you were attacking the messenger, and avoiding the message.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

But, don't get me wrong I have no problem admitting that climate change exists. What I have a problem with is the incessant cries that we're the main cause of it and if we don't stop oil consumption immediately and give all our money to people who are going to save the world with green technology we're doomed. For the record the planet has gone through these warming and cooling periods for eons. So to say man is the cause of global warming could be considered little disingenuous.

You are a victim of the hype then. The denier camp can be just as vocal as the activist one. Marc Murano is the first up against the wall. I think they have become a reaction to each other. The louder one yells, the louder the other has to in order to be heard.

But Science has always been the same. Here is what we see, here is what we predict. Use that information however you like. And what science sees is atmospheric CO2 rising faster than even volcanic events in the past have caused it to rise. And we know CO2 traps heat, and we know that man is emitting more of it year over year. And we see temperatures rise faster than at any time in the past.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cl ... hereic+co2

On the right hand side, change the time scale from '100yr' to 'all'. Conclusive proof it's our fault. This is what data, what measurements show us. So there is only one conclusion to draw. It's our fault. Below the graph are links to all the data sources represented by that graph. Feel free to add counter sources showing how they are all flawed.

Deal with it, or show us evidence that all these things that have been recorded are wrong.

[DrCaleb]

Coach85 Coach85:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Coach85 Coach85:

When we price carbon, we know that it forces companies to reduce their output or buy more credits to maintain, but the effect of the reduction in carbon isn't known.

It is well known.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall

It's not well known.

Nobody can tell you or I what will happen when the World reduces it's carbon output. Your link it pointless.

The effects of carbon dioxide and heat are very well known, and have been for a long time. That's the point to the link.

Reducing it will result in the same climate conditions we saw before it's introduction. Not exactly difficult to comprehend.

Coach85 Coach85:

If someone can tell me that if we reduce our emissions by X amount, it will have X effect on climate change, I'm all ears.

There is no doubt in my mind that climate change exists and humans are responsible for a portion of that.

However, if I'm going to support a scheme worth billions, I think it's reasonable to ask what the outcome will be and if there isn't one, it's pointless.

Can you tell me when (day, date, time) will the first snow will fall this year? Oh well, I guess weather forecasting is pointless, isn't it?

Climate models have been correctly predicting climate for 60 years now. Reducing greenhouse gasses to the same levels Y years ago should result in the same climate we saw Y years ago.

Or am I off base?

Now, think of it the other way. Climate models are predicting some pretty drastic weather over the coming century. Which is cheaper, a carbon tax now, or all that damage for all that time?

[fifeboy]

Tricks Tricks:

CharlesAnthony CharlesAnthony:

Thankfully young people are not buying your parasitic lies.

Especially when upwards of 90% of "young people" believe climate change is a man made problem.

Well, apparently not the 8 year olds.

[Tricks]

To add to Doc's point, it's not just the rise coinciding with human's progression. It's also the measuring of the isotopes of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon has 3 isotopes, carbon 12, 13 and 14. Carbon produced by fossil fuels has zero carbon 14 in it (if I remember right). Because the concentration of C14 vs C12/13 is changing in the atmosphere, we can attribute the change, and increase, to fossil fuels.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

To add to Doc's point, it's not just the rise coinciding with human's progression. It's also the measuring of the isotopes of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon has 3 isotopes, carbon 12, 13 and 14. Carbon produced by fossil fuels has zero carbon 14 in it (if I remember right). Because the concentration of C14 vs C12/13 is changing in the atmosphere, we can attribute the change, and increase, to fossil fuels.

^^^

I forgot that too! Another data point against us.

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You know the type. The ones who If you question their "findings" you become a heretic and hell, some of these faithful have gone so far as to call for the jailing of anyone in authority who doesn't act on their beliefs about climate change.

I certainly don't agree with this. If you don't believe science, it means you are incredibly stupid, but that's not a reason to put people in jail.

[fifeboy]

If one want's to decrease carbon emission than I'm not sure carbon tax or carbon trading is the best way to go. Invest in transportation infrastructure (especially in and around cities,) increase the cost of driving into downtown cores (tax the s$@#! Out of cars going downtown)and make it easier to get downtown by public transit. Set up transit routes to where the jobs are. Tax breaks for people who use less carbon would also be good. One small example is something I'm involved in, school bussing. First student ( the guys I drive for have well over 200 bus runs in Saskatoon. Many of these involves picking up and delivering kids who live well within walking distance.) Why not a tax break for people who have their kids walk to school (other benefits here too.) Or biking to work.
Just a few ideas.

[Zipperfish]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

[65% is a far cry from the 90% claimed and despite having it drilled into their heads in school and social media there's still a fairly large percentage of young people (millennial's) that don't believe we're the sole cause of climate change. So to continue to vilify everyone who doesn't agree with the man made cause of the problem is nothing more than selective fanaticism that makes the people who disagree even more pissed off an less likely to ever embrace the other sides view

Really who cares what you think since you are, presumably, a freaking old guy and you'll be dearly departed soon anyways. Now these millenials will actually be around to have to face real consequences of climate change so they are a little more invested.

[DrCaleb]

fifeboy fifeboy:

If one want's to decrease carbon emission than I'm not sure carbon tax or carbon trading is the best way to go. Invest in transportation infrastructure (especially in and around cities,) increase the cost of driving into downtown cores (tax the s$@#! Out of cars going downtown)and make it easier to get downtown by public transit. Set up transit routes to where the jobs are. Tax breaks for people who use less carbon would also be good. One small example is something I'm involved in, school bussing. First student ( the guys I drive for have well over 200 bus runs in Saskatoon. Many of these involves picking up and delivering kids who live well within walking distance.) Why not a tax break for people who have their kids walk to school (other benefits here too.) Or biking to work.
Just a few ideas.

All good ideas, but wouldn't going after the largest sources create the largest reductions?



https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source ... -emissions

So, transportation and power generation seem to be the big ones.

[llama66]

Its interesting that we're discussing this at all, what with the heatwaves in Scandinavia and Japan. Not to mention the heat in north america. Hell, Calgary has seen 35+ degree temperatures, which is quite irregular. at some point we have to admit the pumping of GHG into the atmosphere is changing its properties as a solution, thereby making it more likely to trap heat.

[Tricks]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

65% is a far cry from the 90% claimed and despite having it drilled into their heads in school and social media there's still a fairly large percentage of young people (millennial's) that don't believe we're the sole cause of climate change. So to continue to vilify everyone who doesn't agree with the man made cause of the problem is nothing more than selective fanaticism that makes the people who disagree even more pissed off an less likely to ever embrace the other sides view

I missed this, you're only talking about America, where there are still people fighting for creationism to be taught in science in some states. I'm talking about a survey done across 180 countries and over 30000 young people.

http://www.shaperssurvey2017.org/static ... y_2017.pdf

(Note, that's a pdf that may auto-download)

[fifeboy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

fifeboy fifeboy:

If one want's to decrease carbon emission than I'm not sure carbon tax or carbon trading is the best way to go. Invest in transportation infrastructure (especially in and around cities,) increase the cost of driving into downtown cores (tax the s$@#! Out of cars going downtown)and make it easier to get downtown by public transit. Set up transit routes to where the jobs are. Tax breaks for people who use less carbon would also be good. One small example is something I'm involved in, school bussing. First student ( the guys I drive for have well over 200 bus runs in Saskatoon. Many of these involves picking up and delivering kids who live well within walking distance.) Why not a tax break for people who have their kids walk to school (other benefits here too.) Or biking to work.
Just a few ideas.

All good ideas, but wouldn't going after the largest sources create the largest reductions?



https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source ... -emissions

So, transportation and power generation seem to be the big ones.

I was speaking about transportation. When I was a student at University of Louisville the local power plant installed sulfur scrubbers for the big coal fired station near the city (acid rain)I would think something could be engineered to remove carbon as well (and not the Wall\Moe pump it underground crap) and store it. Back to transportation though, if you want people to use less fuel, they have to have an incentive, either by making it more expensive to drive (carbon tax) or easier and nicer to not drive (infrastructure.) Tax REDUCTIONS for non driving would also help but require infrastructure to take up the slack.