Evidence of the Climate Hoax

[misutii]

You're right, it would take thousands of years for plants to evolve and be able to use excess co2 for their own growth. What I failed to refer to when I said co2 aids plants, however, was that while more co2 won't magically increase the size of current species, it will influence the growth of more plants and at higher latitudes, for example, then before.

[Enters Laughing]

Has modern society (not some remote, isolated nation) ever experienced a situation where an animal's extinction has triggered an ecological crisis that affected people's lives?

Modern society of course utilises domesticated species, so it's unlikely that one of those domesticated species could simply die out with us knowing about it - though has of course been the worry that utilising species from a small genepool makes each species vulnerable to being wiped out by a particular disease or genetic disorder.

If such a species was affected or wiped out completely in a modern society, you'd think by definition that the society would be able to get over such a crisis, as happened with the European Potato Famine of the 1840s and 1850s. You could argue that they did get over it eventually, but a lot of people died and a lot more emigrated.

Nowadays a small number of domesticated cereal species make up a significant proportion of the world's landmass (I can't remember the figures and I've probably got them mixed up with fish anyway). If one species goes, it would be drastic for the human populace, but they'd probably get over it and there's always genetic modification anyway. But I think it's quite clear that having the world's land domesticated with no concern for the non-domesticated species is not a wise idea - partly because it would place too much reliance on species that are from a narrow genepool, and partly because the many species of the world occupy a huge number of niches that help to buffer the impact of environmental change. You could say that many species are basically the same and that many of them are quite dull and we could quite easily perform just as well with 1% of the species we do now, but I actually think it would be much better to be cautious.

In Wisconsin, we've been having some of the most severe snowfall ever, as well very mild summers. We got like seven feet of snow two years ago. Usually, the winters are cold but not severe in terms of snow, and the summers are extremely hot. Last summer was mild at best.

The global warming propagandists say that global warming results in a net increase in temperature in most places, but that in some places, there can actually be a net decrease in temperature.

[Enters Laughing]

Wouldn't it raise sea levels before melting? I don't think melting ice affects water levels if the ice in question is floating.

Anyway, I thought that Antarctica was actually experiencing record snowfall, or ice growth, or... something like that?

You are correct about melting ice not affecting the level of the water if it is floating, but it should be highlighted that the ice which goes from the land and into the water has been holding back the ice on the land for some time - if the ice in the water was to melt at an increased rate, the amount of ice collapsing into the sea would also increase.

I think there was a story a while back about how seasonal ice growth for the last year or so was at it's greatest point at several years.

As for snowfall - Antarctica is perhaps surprisingly the world's driest continent - an increase in snowfall would not be a good thing. I believe the reason Antartica is so dry is because clouds are unable to form there because there is little evaporation and precipitation being carried from elsewhere. If there was an increase in precipitation, it would presumably be because of an increase in temperature somewhere.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

There's two ways you can control human beings, and both are morally unforgiveable.

You can either control people through money, by creating a culture where people just spend and spend and spend and don't think about things. Which just makes rich old republican men richer and in the end does nothing at all, whatsoever to help anybody else. You must also make things sound better than what they really are, and you make people feel guilty for being a human. You must put an unnecessary positive spin on things which exists only to vamprically and sociopathically give your hard-earned money to somebody who dosen't need it. Like that spoiled old rich lady wondering why people from the ghetto can't just 'get over it.' This is the republican capitalist way.

Or you can control people by institutionalizing information, through a destructive form of socialism or extreme communism. This requires lies like 'the world is ending' or getting us all to fight one another (Making us all fight and then claiming that you have a solution for the social conflict, and repeated again until everybody 'shares' through a cycle of hatred). You must also create a lot of infighting and bureaucracy and unnecessary self-loathing and making certain groups of people as eternal victims for political gain. You also have to unfairly target people who get rich ethically, and totally ignore how competition is natural and normal. This is the democratic socialist way.

[tcaudilllg]

There\'s two ways you can control human beings, and both are morally unforgiveable.

You can either control people through money, by creating a culture where people just spend and spend and spend and don\'t think about things. Which just makes rich old republican men richer and in the end does nothing at all, whatsoever to help anybody else. You must also make things sound better than what they really are, and you make people feel guilty for being a human. You must put an unnecessary positive spin on things which exists only to vamprically and sociopathically give your hard-earned money to somebody who dosen\'t need it. Like that spoiled old rich lady wondering why people from the ghetto can\'t just \'get over it.\' This is the republican capitalist way.

Or you can control people by institutionalizing information, through a destructive form of socialism or extreme communism. This requires lies like \'the world is ending\' or getting us all to fight one another (Making us all fight and then claiming that you have a solution for the social conflict, and repeated again until everybody \'shares\' through a cycle of hatred). You must also create a lot of infighting and bureaucracy and unnecessary self-loathing and making certain groups of people as eternal victims for political gain. You also have to unfairly target people who get rich ethically, and totally ignore how competition is natural and normal. This is the democratic socialist way.

Yeah I can see how political extremists would use those tactics. Do pray tell tell us about how rebels and imperialists control us.

[krieger]

On that Global Cooling issue from the 70s that was mentioned earlier in the thread:

[Rick]

On that Global Cooling issue from the 70s that was mentioned earlier in the thread:

Great video. This matches closely everything I have read on the subject.

Rick, you speak from a position of ignorance. I know how they do that stuff and no, those numbers were not fudged. I recommend that you either get the necessary education, or not comment at all.

What numbers? I recommend that you learn to write understandably in all cases, or cease to write at all.

The likelihood that humans are both the primary cause of climate change, and that, if so, humans can actually do anything significant to combat it is so improbably low as to be a waste of time....

Carbon dioxide itself is by no means a threat to the planet at this point in time. It aids plant life.

Can you cite some science articles that support these claims?

__________________________________________________

Climate change is not something that we can discover the truth about just by sitting around and expressing our opinions. This isn't philosophy or personal values. There is ultimately only one correct answer to the question, "is the climate changing, and if so, how and why?" The only way to come closer to the answer is to employ empirical methods -- data collection, temperature and geomonitoring, ice core sampling, etc.

Therefore, rather than people "thinking for themselves" (it sounds like a virtue, but facts here are worth more than personal opinions, no matter how original), perhaps it makes more sense to refer to articles whose information can be verified. If AGW sceptics have articles supporting their positions, please post them.

Now, as to what, if anything, to do about climate change, THAT is a topic of personal opinion to which there may be no single correct answer. I agree in general with Disco Joe ( http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post593150 ) about what types of action are likely to be effective. I support a market approach rather than a command-economy approach. I think I would support a gradually increasing carbon tax that businesses and individuals would be able to respond to in whatever manner they deem appropriate. The tax would precipitate a series of large-scale changes in society, such as favoring local production (food, goods, services) over distant production because of higher transportation costs, reversing the suburban development trend, and reducing consumption. Hey, it's gonna happen anyway because of Peak Oil... if the U.S. fails to adjust preemptively, it will adjust by necessity, and even more painfully.


Here are some articles I can recommend regarding subjects raised in this thread:

1. On the "Climategate" e-mails:

- Results of an exhaustive study organized by the Associated Press
The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

- Stolen e-mails reveal scientists searching for the truth:
Further reading of stolen emails reveals scientists searching for the truth Climate Progress

- Climateprogress blog post with links to other scientific responses to the leaked e-mails:
Must read AP analysis of stolen emails: An “exhaustive review” shows “the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” Climate Progress

2. Societal response to climate science; conspiracy or not?

- Very recent article by scientist James Hansen about how society has reacted to climate science over the past 30 years:
"The Temperature of Science" - Google Search

- "The Real Climate Scandal" by George Monbiot -- whose conspiracy?:
Monbiot.com The Real Climate Scandal

3. On the scientific consensus or supposed lack thereof:

- Wikipedia article on the "Oregon Petition" that is often referred to by sceptics or denialists:
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Articles about the scientific consensus at Wikipedia:
Climate change consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(for those who like to say that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source on scientific topics, simply follow the links provided in the articles to non-Wikipedia sources)

4. On the popular view that "the IPCC is a joke," a "UN hack," "just a political body," etc.:

- Wikipedia article on the IPCC, including methodology and criticism:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- And rather than repeat what others say about the IPCC, you can take a look at their latest report (2007):
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(I don't know how anyone who has taken at least a few minutes to browse the IPCC report and learned about the methodology -- i.e. simply summarizing existing research -- can dismiss it as being an unscientific product by an unscientific body)

- Wikipedia summary of 2007 IPCC report for the lazy:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. Sea ice -- is it growing or shrinking?

- Data summary with graphs covering both poles:
All About Sea Ice: Characteristics: Arctic vs. Antarctic

(note that Antarctic sea ice extent has been slightly increasing, while Arctic sea ice has been rapidly dropping)

[Jimbean]

Again, I am not done with this.

[Jarno]

In about 50 years we will look back at this period and say, geez what a lot of unnecessary money was spent for lowering 2 degrees. In 2040 we've switched to 100% nuclear power and cars that run on water. We could have just let the temperature rise a bit and trusted our inginuity for the future more.

[tcaudilllg]

What numbers? I recommend that you learn to write understandably in all cases, or cease to write at all.

The warming trend gradation numbers which had placeholder values to account for experimental errors which failed to demonstrate the trend.

[Rick]

The warming trend gradation numbers which had placeholder values to account for experimental errors which failed to demonstrate the trend.

I think you mixed me up with another poster. I reread my posts in this thread and could find nothing along the lines of what you're saying I said.

[tcaudilllg]

I think that global warming / climate change indeed has the potential to lead to the formation of a global federation where individual nations submit to the global government in certain aspects of their lifestyle and activities. The summit in Copenhagen is very telling in this regard. However, because the centripedal forces against global government are so great (i.e. it is not in the self-interest of a single state to do so unless the alternative is anhilation), I do not think that this will actually happen unless human-caused environmental changes and degradation become obvious and imminently severe. In other words, some fudged numbers by biased scientists seeking research grants combined with dramatic films about global disasters are far from enough to make national leaders sacrifice their interests and join a global confederation. If such a thing arises, it will only be because of actual, clearly demonstrated manmade global environmental catastrophe. As soon as the threat is resolved (in the best case scenario), central control will weaken, and the federation will break up or continue to exist only as a formality.

Naughty naughty.

But I see what you are saying: people will only unite against common crises. But is that not ominous... kinda sad to think that people have to face endless threats as a condition for their indefinite cooperation. Makes you wonder why we couldn't work together just to see smiles on each others' faces, ya know?

You've actually got a good point though, because if action is taken then things'll end up just like they did after y2k, with the crisis being averted and most people wondering whether there was ever a crisis at all, or if it was just imagined. Then come the revisionists with their half-hearted credentials and intent to rewrite history to justify their return to the same old shit and put the world in peril again.

[tcaudilllg]

"The experts"... lol.

That's the funniest thing I've seen all day.

Edit: Silly labcoat, rethinking his funny video posts.

[ragnar]

My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid.

Well-written and documented overview of the various climate change scares over the last 100 years: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

as Rick stated, it's the ecological shock of a quick increase in CO2 that causes problems.

I'm very sceptical to such claims, given the fact that plants and animals routinely deal with large and sudden changes already - changes much more sudden and much larger than the AGW movement assumes.

As an example, the air in an urban area may easily contain twice the co2 concentration of the air in the adjacent countryside. A breeze may replace within minutes said air with air deficient in co2. Without any harm either to vegetations or animals either there or downwind.

Also, a typical living room may easily have triple the co2 concentration outdoors, yet the indoor plants suffer no harm when the air is periodically replaced.

Also, in order to increase yields, people sometimes elevate co2 concentration in their greenhouses to levels 10 times higher than the outdoor concentration. With plants suffering no ill effects from the fluctuations.

Also, humans (and presumably most other species) do just fine with co2 levels many times larger than the present one or anything likely to ever come about.

Sorry I'm too lazy to dig up specific documentation, this could be a start: indoor co2 concentrations - Dogpile Web Search

[munenori2]

In about 50 years we will look back at this period and say, geez what a lot of unnecessary money was spent for lowering 2 degrees. In 2040 we've switched to 100% nuclear power and cars that run on water. We could have just let the temperature rise a bit and trusted our inginuity for the future more.

Unless all our brilliant minds are still wacking it playing even better video games and/or trying to get laid in space.

[Rick]

Well-written and documented overview of the various climate change scares over the last 100 years: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

First of all, note that the overview talks about nonscientific publications ("Times," "Newsweek," etc.) and the writings of journalists. Surely scientists do not have to answer for claims made by journalists looking for a catchy headline and a shocking story. This article is not an accurate overview of peer-reviewed research. Journalism and peer-reviewed scientific research need to be examined separately; when done so, you will find that while a great deal of "controversy" exists in the popular press and political circles (which feed on controversy, duh), remarkably little of it exists in the climate science community.

(Who, for instance, is Lowell Ponte, author of "The Cooling," prominently mentioned in the overview?? He's not even a scientist, and his book was blown off by scientists; see http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html)

Contrast the contents of the businessandmedia report with the Wikipedia article on Global Cooling: Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The remarkable thing as that even in the 1970s, when a multi-decade cooling trend had been in place, there were still over 3 times as many peer-reviewed (i.e. nonjournalistic) research articles predicting global warming than global cooling (see video posted above). This was because the role of greenhouse gases such as CO2 was already well understood, and during this time researchers realized that manmade aerosols caused a cooling effect, and this might account for the much of the recent cooling trend.

Many or most of the statements by scientists predicting cooling referred to some time thousands of years into the future when the Earth would settle into the next Ice Age, because the cyclical nature of recent ice ages was beginning to be well understood. However, many of these statements were taken out of context and made to appear that scientists were predicting cooling on a much closer timescale.

See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

Now, however, voices predicting imminent cooling among _scientists_ are basically nonexistent, as the mechanisms of warming and cooling are well understood, and the warming is well documented.

I'm very sceptical to such claims, given the fact that plants and animals routinely deal with large and sudden changes already - changes much more sudden and much larger than the AGW movement assumes.

As an example, the air in an urban area may easily contain twice the co2 concentration of the air in the adjacent countryside. A breeze may replace within minutes said air with air deficient in co2. Without any harm either to vegetations or animals either there or downwind.

Also, a typical living room may easily have triple the co2 concentration outdoors, yet the indoor plants suffer no harm when the air is periodically replaced.

Also, in order to increase yields, people sometimes elevate co2 concentration in their greenhouses to levels 10 times higher than the outdoor concentration. With plants suffering no ill effects from the fluctuations.

Also, humans (and presumably most other species) do just fine with co2 levels many times larger than the present one or anything likely to ever come about.

Sorry I'm too lazy to dig up specific documentation, this could be a start: indoor co2 concentrations - Dogpile Web Search

I personally have not read anything suggesting that rapid changes in CO2 concentration are a significant danger to plants directly, although the beneficial effects of CO2 for plants (so-called "plant fertilizer") supposedly begin to taper off after some level of atmospheric concentration higher than what we're at today (sorry, can't find link offhand). Rather, the dangers come from changes in temperatures and precipitation patterns that could make things harder for many different species all at the same time, and also from growing oceanic acidification, which is a result of rising atmospheric CO2.


2Tcaudilllg: Aha, I was making a point not that numbers were fudged (I am an AGW "believer"), but that if they were, that would not be a powerful enough force to induce countries to join together in a common cause such as climate change mitigation. The forces would have to be imminent, powerful, and undeniable.

[tcaudilllg]

@Rick: Sure thing, but my advice is to be more precise next time in your wording. I'm trying to follow that advice myself. Another thing: it pays to anticipate the arguments of your opponents, and to rebut them before they can speak. Kills the conversation, but makes you look competent and in command of the issues.

[Jimbean]

I think Rick is more researched in this area than I am; ultimately this debate has changed no one's minds, and it won't, unless any certain individual decides to change. I have gathered up more evidence supporting my argument, but after some time I figured this would be a waste of time. As Sun Tzu would say, “There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, and commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.” In short, what I am getting at from those who think global warming is man made is that the powers that be do not want instruments such as the carbon tax. On the other hand, what I am getting at basically is that the powers that be are falsifying publications through foundations and using “useful idiots” to rationalize more control (i.e. carbon tax and global governance). It is what it is.

[olduser]

I really am becoming an expert on atmospheric chemistry, for all concerned, and will soon make valuable contributions to this thread.

[Rick]

This chart shows how the climate change debate is reported in the popular press compared to professional opinions on the subject (in the United States):

ClimateChangeReporting.jpg (image)

There are many different aspects of the climate change debate that are graphically represented here. The popular press tends to cover issues as they are discussed in the public arena, not in professional circles. The right-wing think tanks are disproportionately vocal in the public arena compared to their numbers, whereas the vast numbers of climate change professionals who think the costs of climate change will be substantial tend to be professionally, but not publicly active. Therefore, the public perception among non-professionals is that substantial debate exists as to whether climate change is a problem or not.

Reasons for the disproportionate influence of right-wing think tanks are their political and business affiliations. Their purpose is to influence policy and public opinion. In the popular press, the IPCC is generally portrayed as the ideological opponent of these right-wing groups. In reality the IPCC's predictions are on the conservative side of professional opinions regarding climate change; observed climate changes have been on the top end of or even beyond IPCC estimate ranges, not in the middle. Data shows that the IPCC reports, though meticulous (with some errors, such as 2035 as a probable date of the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers), are consistently too conservative.

I think that most of the perception that the climate change debate is "too politicized" and thus not to be trusted comes from the fact that the non-alarmist side of the debate has used politically conservative (rather than scientific) arguments to downplay the importance of climate change and has labelled societal solutions to climate change problems proposed by the other side of the debate as "liberal" (more government intervention, more regulation, etc.). Likewise, activists on the alarmist side of the debate have been prone to attack not only the scientific views of their opponents, but also their general political stance. As the common people observe the debate and see their own political sentiments attacked, they tend to side with those who reflect their own political sentiments rather than necessarily studying the data behind climate change science.

Among climate change scientists, the real debate is: will sea level rise 2 feet or 6 feet by 2100? Will the effects be serious, severe, or catastrophic? To what degree should scientists participate in public debate on political solutions for climate change mitigation?

[tcaudilllg]

I look at it this way: unless the carbon dioxide is brought back down to earth someday, somehow, then the earth WILL get warmer and warmer.

We need to take two steps:
1) cut down on emissions as much as possible.
2) research carbon dioxide extraction technologies.

#1 buys us time to create #2, which quite frankly makes SDI look feasible.

Here's the question before my mind: how do we get something high enough to collect the carbon dioxide? If I'm thinking correctly, it's too hot up there to place any plants. Plus with the rainforest destruction continuing, there are less carbon dioxide eliminators altogether. The problem has multiple dimensions.

There are many different aspects of the climate change debate that are graphically represented here. The popular press tends to cover issues as they are discussed in the public arena, not in professional circles. The right-wing think tanks are disproportionately vocal in the public arena compared to their numbers, whereas the vast numbers of climate change professionals who think the costs of climate change will be substantial tend to be professionally, but not publicly active. Therefore, the public perception among non-professionals is that substantial debate exists as to whether climate change is a problem or not.

I agree with this. The money is definitely coming down from on-high, and that is not a good thing.

[consentingadult]

Lets assume for a moment that climate change is a scientific fact. Now ask yourself if there is any truth to[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory"] social cycle theory[/ame], and if so, how that will manifest itself and what the implications will be for climate change.

My personal opinion:

• 2nd half 18th century: new economic elite is forming (Anciem Regime), gradually disenfranchising the majority of people, meanwhile new ideologies make it into society:liberalism (as in European Liberalism) as a response to economic elite.
• 1776/1789: liberal revolution
• 1790-1848: period of ideological and societal unrest and instability while old and new powers battle for control
• 1848/1865: liberalism (or Age Enlightenment Philosophy at large) emerges victorious
• 1848-1870: relatively stable period and economic development

• 1870-1914: new economic elite is forming, gradually disenfranchising the majority of people, meanwhile new ideologies make it into society: nationalism, socialism, anarchism, confessionalism (christian democrats)
• 1914: war
• 1918-1945: period of ideological and societal unrest and instability while old and new powers battle for control
• 1945: major ideologies from 2nd half 19th century become mainstream (socialism, confessionalism)
• 1945-1980: relatively stable period and economic development

• 1980-????: new economic elite is forming, gradually disenfranchising the majority of people, meanwhile new ideologies make it into society: environmentalism, anti-globalism, fundamentalism
• ????: revolutions, wars???
• ????-????: period of ideological and societal unrest and instability while old and new powers battle for control
• ????: new ideologies emerge victorious (????)
• ????-????: relatively stable period and economic development

etc.etc.

So how does climate change pose a threat to me? It doesn't, I believe it will work itself out, but not without a battle of some kind. ETA: it will not be solved by an appeal to reason or common sense.

Don't forget to collect a decent amount of canned food before that time.

[tcaudilllg]

This is one of the great failings of Wikipedia. You have this situation where the kooks are on the same level as the respectable scientists. Bottom line is, many of the contributors on Wikipedia are amateurs who don't believe in themselves worth a fuck and as such are unwilling to pass judgment on which theories are likely to be true or not and hence notable when they have provoked no significant effect.

But Wikipedia is post-modernist hell, so....

That said I consider consentingadult worthy of my ignore list and that's where he's going.

[consentingadult]

This is one of the great failings of Wikipedia. You have this situation where the kooks are on the same level as the respectable scientists. Bottom line is, many of the contributors on Wikipedia are amateurs who don't believe in themselves worth a fuck and as such are unwilling to pass judgment on which theories are likely to be true or not and hence notable when they have provoked no significant effect.

But Wikipedia is post-modernist hell, so....

That said I consider consentingadult worthy of my ignore list and that's where he's going.

[tcaudilllg]

I must commend you for making a blog full of tidbits about what socionics is not.

[consentingadult]

I must commend you for making a blog full of tidbits about what socionics is not.

Wasn't I on ignore? Well, what do you know, an LII with a sense of humor!

So tell me Tony, how should I interpret your response to my post, are you serious or kidding?

[tcaudilllg]

Wasn't I on ignore? Well, what do you know, an LII with a sense of humor!

So tell me Tony, how should I interpret your response to my post, are you serious or kidding?

It's called sarcasm you dumbass.

[consentingadult]

It's called sarcasm you dumbass.

Well, lets set something straight here first: I know for a fact I'm not a dumbass. Period.

Then lets go into a discussion of my post and your reply to it:

• If you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed the HYPER smiley, which should have given you a clue to me not being quite serious. The only reason I can think of why, can be beautifully explained by a quote form the common roles of LIIs from the wiki: Mr. or Ms. Literal, who says exactly what (s)he means, and trusts that you will too.
• You expressed your disagreement with the Wikipedia article. Guess what: I happen to agree with you completely, since the article is very much based on proto-scientific (e.g. sociologist/economist Vilfredo Pareto) and pseudo-scientific (e.g. P. R. Sarkar) ideas. But that being said, I think the basic idea of Social Cycle Theory has its merits when loosely understood as a general principle that can manifest itself in different forms (e.g. theory of quadra cycles or shifts). For over 65 years we've had peace in the Western world, which is quite an unprecedented long time. I fail to see why our period in history would be fundamentally different compared to what happened between the neolithic and industrial revolutions.
• As to my interpretation of history of the past 250 years: I myself can think of different ways history can be interpreted, and that was exactly my point: people talk about climate change if it's something thats certainly going happen (some say not) if we continue like we do, whereas I think it is entirely possible that events might happen in the world at some stage that we can't foresee and have no control over, but which will change the course of history beyond our conceptions. I do believe history repeats itself, but never in the exact same way.
• I am surprised that a Socionics veteran like yourself up to this day hasn't learned to apply the insights gained from Socionics. Your insights could have helped you understand what I was doing and why, as well as to our personal interaction, but no, you held on to your rigid and negativistic attitudes and self-serving view of reality.
• Finally: as to the statement on my blog (I actually forgot that it was still there): I stand by it, but I'm not going to discuss it: I was once young, proud, and sure of myself too, and I know we all have to go through that and learn different at some stage and learn humility. I have come to the conclusion that Socionics has big value (as a proto-science), but its conclusions are not written in Ti-stone.

Don't get me wrong, there are no hard feelings on my behalf. In fact, in the past I thought you were a shizotypal/schizophrenic lunatic, but I've noticed that since you were unbanned you're much more balanced and enjoyable and I actually started started to develop some appreciation for you. It would be such a shame if I would lose that appreciation again, but if I would, there would be no love lost.

[tcaudilllg]

Well, lets set something straight here first: I know for a fact I'm not a dumbass. Period.

Then lets go into a discussion of my post and your reply to it:

• If you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed the HYPER smiley, which should have given you a clue to me not being quite serious. The only reason I can think of why, can be beautifully explained by a quote form the common roles of LIIs from the wiki: Mr. or Ms. Literal, who says exactly what (s)he means, and trusts that you will too.
• You expressed your disagreement with the Wikipedia article. Guess what: I happen to agree with you completely, since the article is very much based on proto-scientific (e.g. sociologist/economist Vilfredo Pareto) and pseudo-scientific (e.g. P. R. Sarkar) ideas. But that being said, I think the basic idea of Social Cycle Theory has its merits when loosely understood as a general principle that can manifest itself in different forms (e.g. theory of quadra cycles or shifts). For over 65 years we've had peace in the Western world, which is quite an unprecedented long time. I fail to see why our period in history would be fundamentally different compared to what happened between the neolithic and industrial revolutions.
• As to my interpretation of history of the past 250 years: I myself can think of different ways history can be interpreted, and that was exactly my point: people talk about climate change if it's something thats certainly going happen (some say not) if we continue like we do, whereas I think it is entirely possible that events might happen in the world at some stage that we can't foresee and have no control over, but which will change the course of history beyond our conceptions. I do believe history repeats itself, but never in the exact same way.
• I am surprised that a Socionics veteran like yourself up to this day hasn't learned to apply the insights gained from Socionics. Your insights could have helped you understand what I was doing and why, as well as to our personal interaction, but no, you held on to your rigid and negativistic attitudes and self-serving view of reality.
• Finally: as to the statement on my blog (I actually forgot that it was still there): I stand by it, but I'm not going to discuss it: I was once young, proud, and sure of myself too, and I know we all have to go through that and learn different at some stage and learn humility. I have come to the conclusion that Socionics has big value (as a proto-science), but its conclusions are not written in Ti-stone.

Don't get me wrong, there are no hard feelings on my behalf. In fact, in the past I thought you were a shizotypal/schizophrenic lunatic, but I've noticed that since you were unbanned you're much more balanced and enjoyable and I actually started started to develop some appreciation for you. It would be such a shame if I would lose that appreciation again, but if I would, there would be no love lost.

Actually I've held you as a nutcase for a while. And in this community, you definitely have plenty of company.

[consentingadult]

Actually I've held you as a nutcase for a while. And in this community, you definitely have plenty of company.

No Tony, I'm not going to return the favor by retaliating.

[Rick]

Here's the question before my mind: how do we get something high enough to collect the carbon dioxide? If I'm thinking correctly, it's too hot up there to place any plants. Plus with the rainforest destruction continuing, there are less carbon dioxide eliminators altogether. The problem has multiple dimensions.

Ah, but if the problem were only the atmosphere! Actually, most of mankind's CO2 exhaust has already been absorbed by the oceans, which now pose the threat of rapid acidification to the point that coral reefs and other sensitive ocean life may die off, creating a domino effect throughout the food chain.

Virtually all proposed CO2 "entrapment" ideas require large inputs of energy and high costs that make them impractical for now. The only real winner on every level is biochar -- a roundabout way of capturing CO2. It may take some research to understand (if you're that interested), but the basic idea is that instead of burning biomass or allowing it to decompose (meaning that the vast majority of the carbon escapes to the atmosphere as CO2), it is burned in such a way as to convert the biomass to charcoal. This is a stable form of carbon that does not decompose into CO2, at least over thousands of years. Furthermore, it can be used to vastly increase soil fertility, and the technology to produce the charcoal is very cheap. It's already being implemented in places and growing exponentially.

Most other effective ways of carbon sequestration involve simply not producing the CO2 in the first place -- protecting rainforests from destruction, closing coal-burning plants, changing agricultural practices to allow for more carbon build-up in the soil, switching from fuel use to electricity, which involves less energy loss through the production cycle, improving housing insulation and windows to allow for less fuel burning, and many others.

[olduser]

Ah, but if the problem were only the atmosphere! Actually, most of mankind's CO2 exhaust has already been absorbed by the oceans, which now pose the threat of rapid acidification to the point that coral reefs and other sensitive ocean life may die off, creating a domino effect throughout the food chain.

Virtually all proposed CO2 "entrapment" ideas require large inputs of energy and high costs that make them impractical for now. The only real winner on every level is biochar -- a roundabout way of capturing CO2. It may take some research to understand (if you're that interested), but the basic idea is that instead of burning biomass or allowing it to decompose (meaning that the vast majority of the carbon escapes to the atmosphere as CO2), it is burned in such a way as to convert the biomass to charcoal. This is a stable form of carbon that does not decompose into CO2, at least over thousands of years. Furthermore, it can be used to vastly increase soil fertility, and the technology to produce the charcoal is very cheap. It's already being implemented in places and growing exponentially.

Most other effective ways of carbon sequestration involve simply not producing the CO2 in the first place -- protecting rainforests from destruction, closing coal-burning plants, changing agricultural practices to allow for more carbon build-up in the soil, switching from fuel use to electricity, which involves less energy loss through the production cycle, improving housing insulation and windows to allow for less fuel burning, and many others.

I had a lecture on this recently. Basically the current design takes the gases from combustion, and runs them through a machine which injects fine particulates of silica, an extremely abundent natural resource(2nd most) which mocks a natural process making natural minerals(carbonates). The real boon is that the silicate minerals necessary for capturing CO2 as carbonate can be obtained from landfill refuse. A professor at my university actually pioneered the system. However, as you mentioned, it is still yet energy intensive.

here is a brief from the professor's website:
'Natural mineral carbonation process is an interesting concept which involves permanent storage of CO2 in silicate minerals and alkaline hazardous solid wastes as carbonate minerals. However, natural mineral carbonation process is a very slow process. Our research group proposed simple and effective laboratory techniques to accelerate the natural mineral carbonation process of hazardous alkaline solid wastes (Reddy et al., 1986, 15: 129-133, Journal of Environmental Quality and Reddy et al., 1991, 25: 1466-1469, Environmental Science and Technology).'

However, I think CO2 is going to remain a problem until there are more satisfactory methods to the elimination of CO2 methods you listed, therefore a balance between research in carbon sequestering, and non-carbon energy is required.

[olduser]

Anyway, I have very specific scientific knowledge about global climate change so if anyone wants a thorough/scientific explanation of the events, and more so, the whys of the events, please feel free to ask any question, whether it's stupid or really stupid(just kidding).

[discojoe]

Anyway, I have very specific scientific knowledge about global climate change so if anyone wants a thorough/scientific explanation of the events, and more so, the whys of the events, please feel free to ask any question, whether it's stupid or really stupid(just kidding).

Does this knowledge come from the IPCC?

[olduser]

Does this knowledge come from the IPCC?

A lot of it is derived from the basic physical laws of the universe, chemicals. I can interpret the IPCC data and techniques independently because I know physics/chemistry.

[discojoe]

A lot of it is derived from the basic physical laws of the universe, chemicals.

It seems like said laws could be used to extrapolate false conclusions based on present circumstances. I think you need to mix physical law with empirical fact in order to clear away unseen variables. Physical laws alone assumes far too large a degree of ceteris paribus.

I can interpret the IPCC data and techniques independently because I know physics/chemistry.

I am not familiar with your level of expertise, but I do know that knowing science is not the same as being a qualified interpreter of scientific research. There is also the matter of IPCC data arguably being invalid and/or unreliable.

[olduser]

It seems like said laws could be used to extrapolate false conclusions based on present circumstances. I think you need to mix physical law with empirical fact in order to clear away unseen variables. Physical laws alone assumes far too large a degree of ceteris paribus.


I am not familiar with your level of expertise, but I do know that knowing science is not the same as being a qualified interpreter of scientific research. There is also the matter of IPCC data arguably being invalid and/or unreliable.

Laws are laws, they can be used to explain processes, which is more what i am interested in, I can clarify the scientific techniques/principles used. I can interpret the data fine. It's actually very simple(IPCC techniques can be understood by anyone who has taken a class in quantitative chemical analysis). Usually data is collected over a long period of time and a least squares fitting routine is run on the collected data to see if there is a linear relationship between time and temperature change. I'm not entirely convinced that increased greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change, or even a contributor, as we are experiencing a natural occurring climate change(we are in a hot cycle so to speak), as evidenced by the available IPCC data. The data also produces argument against climate change. It shows that there is a lag between CO2 buildup and temperature change, whereas it is assumed in climate change rhetoric that increased CO2 concentrations directly and proportionally increases temperature. For instance, in the last ice age, CO2 concentrations increased, yet it was still an ice age. Anyway, unless you have questions of scientific nature, I am not interested. It's an extremely complex issue and not at all a 'hoax.'

FWIW, after this semester I will have finished the entire chemistry program(taken every necessary chemistry/science class) for my bachelor of science with the exception of an instrumental analysis lab. I've also taken environmental chemistry course, college physics, and quantum mechanics. I'm currently doing a research internship in organic chemistry which isn't really relevant to climate science.

[discojoe]

Laws are laws, they can be used to explain processes, which is more what i am interested in, I can clarify the scientific techniques/principles used. I can interpret the data fine. It's actually very simple(IPCC techniques can be understood by anyone who has taken a class in quantitative chemical analysis). Usually data is collected over a long period of time and a least squares fitting routine is run on the collected data to see if there is a linear relationship between time and temperature change. I'm not entirely convinced that increased greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change, or even a contributor, as we are experiencing a natural occurring climate change(we are in a hot cycle so to speak), as evidenced by the available IPCC data. The data also produces argument against climate change. It shows that there is a lag between CO2 buildup and temperature change, whereas it is assumed in climate change rhetoric that increased CO2 concentrations directly and proportionally increases temperature. For instance, in the last ice age, CO2 concentrations increased, yet it was still an ice age. Anyway, unless you have questions of scientific nature, I am not interested. It's an extremely complex issue and not at all a 'hoax.'

FWIW, after this semester I will have finished the entire chemistry program(taken every necessary chemistry/science class) for my bachelor of science with the exception of an instrumental analysis lab. I've also taken environmental chemistry course, college physics, and quantum mechanics. I'm currently doing a research internship in organic chemistry which isn't really relevant to climate science.

What is your stance on the issue? I won't argue with you or anything; I am just curious about global warming and science in general.

[olduser]

What is your stance on the issue? I won't argue with you or anything; I am just curious about global warming and science in general.

it's inconclusive. I believe there is a global climate change, but whether it is anthropogenic or some other cause really remains to be seen(i wonder if there has been a study on climate data and earth's proposed orbit for the past 400,000 years because there definitely are trends within that data between hot times and ice ages that have an explanation outside of 'humans derd it!') . I understand the logic of seeing increased CO2 concentrations as a threat because greenhouse gases are necessary in regulating Earth's temperature, and considering they only account for .04 % of the total gas mixture in our immediate atmosphere(troposphere), even slight changes in concentration could be bad, but like the IPCC data shows(I trust this data because I learned about how they are doing to analysis and the method seems valid, and i was very skeptical at first of the method), there isn't a directly proportional relationship between temperature increase and CO2 concentrations, it DOES occur, but there is a lag of many years.

Haha, that's the general science answer, some guys will be belligerent, but every professor I've had and the person I took envirochem from was like, "There still isn't a definite answer." And the scientists' habit of making outright conclusions in their articles can be misleading because the language of science is different than everyday language, it won't do not to be definite.

I think scientists generally deal with simple systems, even if non-scientists don't think so. I see doing science as kind of like taking care of a dog. You know that dog in and out, and despite all the complex descriptive formulas, it is still so much less complex than say, something like a human being. A personality and everything that goes into making a person a person is so much bigger than say, the digestive tract, something known, studied and understood. This is a slight digression. However, a system like the ENTIRE earth, is more complex than a human being, and it's not the job of the individual scientist to take in every piece of data available because it would be impossible, and specialization and lack of compilation of every data and data analysis makes understanding the climate incredibly difficult.

[Rick]

it's inconclusive. I believe there is a global climate change, but whether it is anthropogenic or some other cause really remains to be seen(i wonder if there has been a study on climate data and earth's proposed orbit for the past 400,000 years because there definitely are trends within that data between hot times and ice ages that have an explanation outside of 'humans derd it!') . I understand the logic of seeing increased CO2 concentrations as a threat because greenhouse gases are necessary in regulating Earth's temperature, and considering they only account for .04 % of the total gas mixture in our immediate atmosphere(troposphere), even slight changes in concentration could be bad, but like the IPCC data shows(I trust this data because I learned about how they are doing to analysis and the method seems valid, and i was very skeptical at first of the method), there isn't a directly proportional relationship between temperature increase and CO2 concentrations, it DOES occur, but there is a lag of many years.

Haha, that's the general science answer, some guys will be belligerent, but every professor I've had and the person I took envirochem from was like, "There still isn't a definite answer."

This surprises me, because I can hardly recall reading any statements by climate scientists online that say they are unsure of whether humans are influencing the climate or contributing to global warming. Even the few scientists (generally not climate scientists) who think "global warming is not much of a problem" still think that humans are the primary cause of recent warming.

CO2 was shown long ago to be a greenhouse gas in laboratory conditions, such as this: Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect
It is undeniable 1) that higher levels of CO2 trap more solar radiation on Earth, 2) that CO2 levels have been rising since the dawn of the industrial age, and 3) that human activity is the cause of most of the rise in CO2. Therefore, a warmer Earth is to be expected. This is confirmed by the paleoclimate record, which clearly associates higher CO2 levels with higher global temperatures.

CO2 is just one of several greenhouse gases, but it is responsible for significantly more of the greenhouse effect than the others.

Likewise, greenhouse gases are just one of the factors influencing long-term climate change, and it is incorrect to frame the AGW climate change debate in terms of "are humans the sole cause of climate change or not?" or "how is it possible that climate changed in the past without human interference?"

It is generally recognized that in previous times greenhouse gas levels have acted not as an initiator but as an amplifier of trends triggered by orbital cycles. This article explains why there is a lag between temperature increase and CO2 increase in the paleoclimate record: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Here is a really superb article on the history of climate science and how each important discovery was made: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm