Apparently not ALL scientists agree with Gore

[nonconformist]

So you claim pascals wager when it comes to global warming, but deny it when it comes to God.

Rather hypocritical dont you think?...not to mention rather inconsistent.

Yeah, you want to live in a world that's colder....YET YOU CONDEMN YOURELF TO DANTE's INFERNO FOREVER!

Muhahahahah!

 

[pboily]

We both type in English, but we clearly don't speak the same language.

... in the political battle ... I prefer Gore's side to the other side...

(emphasis mine)

I apologize to other posters who are sick of hearing/seeing the same thing over and over again: the only certainty here is that one of us will tire before the other.

Here we go again: the issue is not an issue of science, it is an issue of politics. In a political debate, one selectively choses evidence based on what they already know (or believe to be true).

In the intitial posts, this was stated a number of times. I also like Uruderra's slant on it.

MobBoss already has made up his mind as to what the truth is (in spite of him never, ever, having said so anywhere in the thread) and so have I. It makes no difference that I cannot refute anthropomorphic climate-change deniers' claims and that Mobbie cannot defend these same claims, neither of us are qualified to do so, even though I'm a scientist.

So we need to make a political choice. And chosing amongst politics is akin to deciding to root for the Cardinals over the Cubs: there is no real reason to do so unless you were brought up in St. Louis and Chicago, and you cannot prove that a particular choice is better than the other. At least, you cannot do so on a scientific basis.

So Mob is a Cubs fan (I know, I know, you've never once claimed to be a Cubs fan), and I'm a Cardinals fan, and the exchange goes something to the tune of:

M:"The Cubs are better!"
P:"The Cardinals are better, as they've won more World Series than the Cubs. But you can't really convince a fan that his team isn't the best, so go ahead, root for the Cubs, I'll keep on cheering for the Cardinals like your team is going to win anyway..."
M: "World Series mean nothing, there are other ways to determine what team is better: more people root for the Cubs!"
C: "Well, it might not necessarily be true that the Cubs have more fans..."
M: "ROFL, Dusty Baker (who's a major league manager! major league!) says the Cubs have more fans, so what do you know?"
P: "You would believe what Baker says, you're in the Army, you love authority figures!"
M: "Are you saying military men don't think for themselves?"
P: "No, I'm saying taking Baker's word at face value is stupid because none of us know how to manage a baseball team, and besides, Tommy Lasorda once said Baker doesn't really know what he's talking about"
M: "Not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you even said before the Cardinals of 1945 were better than the Cubs of 1945, even thought the Cubs finished 4 games up on the Cardinals" (that might not actually be the case)
P: "We will never agree on whether the Cardinals or the Cubs are better, there are too many factors involved and we just use our preference to try to prove it, which is stupid. I'm already rooting for the Cardinals, I have seen evidence that they are better than the Cubs (hell, they've won more WS), most baseball expert agree that the Cardinals are better, it's just we don't know by how much."
P: "Oh, and one more thing: I have to root for the Cardinals because I want my daughter to be able to see a WS win somewhere down the road, and if she roots for the Cubs she'll never ever see it, because the Cardinals are better than the Cubs."

The "Pascal Wager" of baseball is that it's better to root for the Cardinals than to root for the Cubs, because rooting for the Cubs leads to infinite pain.

For the sake of argument, let's look at the commonly held interpretation of his wager.

You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

If anybody can explain to me what an infinite gain, or an infinite loss is, I will be greatful. Until then, my "Pascal Wager" is

You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is finite.
You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite.
You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite.
You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is finite.

Look at that, a zero-sum game! Well, that didn't resolve anything... I just can't use it to determine if I should believe in God or not. Now, maybe I can do the same for the political decision to be on Gore's side or on the other side.

You may in GCC and there is GCC: you've prepared for it somewhat so your loss is minimized.
You may believe in GCC and there is no GCC: your loss is nil.
You may not believe in GCC, and there is GCC: cripes, that ain't good. You got caught with your pants down.
You may not believe in GCC, and there is no GCC: good for you! your loss is also nil.

So, only one of these gives you a minimal loss: politically, I will side with the GCCers.

But you made up these probabilities and outcomes, it could be worse or it could be better! I know, just as Pascal made up his outcomes.

 

[pboily]

Except that It is Gore and the global warming alarmist the ones who came for the SUVs, Oil executives and the Free Marketers... Have you changed your side suddenly?

And what are you going to deprive your daugther from to stop global warming?

You don't think there are some who deny Global Climate Change for that very reason?

I for one do not think that fighting (the supposedly negative effects of) Global Climate Change will alter my life drastically, nor will it deprive my daughter (or any other Westerner for that matter) of much that she would already be deprived of. Last I heard, the fridge industry wasn't thorn to shreds when CFCs got banned (the chemical, not the message board): what we did was force scientists to come up with a somewhat cleaner approach. We do our best work when we are desperate.

 

[cegman]

I live in wisconsin Global warming doesn't look that bad from where I am sitting. We just have to move disney a little to the north.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: pboily - you started this by starting the ad-hominem attack on MobBoss.
MobBoss - your counter-attack (and then some) completely derailed this thread.

Keep the debate civil and about the topic; not about those engaged in debating it.

Both warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Norlamand]

There is no such thing as global warming. Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow cap is not melting away. And this chart is merely leftist trickery.

I don't know what's so hard to understand. If you pollute a bunch of hydrocarbon exhaust into the atmosphere, on such a large scale (how much oil does the USA use? And now China? India?), how can you think it won't have some kind of affect? The mere fact that there is a hole in the ozone should indicate that human industrial products can affect the planet's atmosphere.

How can it not be common sense? How? Industry creates pollution... and pollution affects the atmosphere. Even a guy like me that's never set foot in college can grasp that pretty easily.

MobBoss correctly points out that there is a near one to one correlation between increases in solar activity (ie. sunspots) and the current (an coincidentally the past) variations in Earths temperatures. I suppose the neocons and Bush had something to do with that? The charts were taken from the Wikipedia entry on the Maunder Minimum..............another inconvienient truth..........The yellow chart is in reverse with the present to the left.... looks suspiciously like there is a correlation...............probably just a neocon plot.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss correctly points out that there is a near one to one correlation between increases in solar activity (ie. sunspots) and the current (an coincidentally the past) variations in Earths temperatures. I suppose the neocons and Bush had something to do with that? The charts were taken from the Wikipedia entry on the Maunder Minimum..............another inconvienient truth..........The yellow chart is in reverse with the present to the left.... looks suspiciously like there is a correlation...............probably just a neocon plot.

Thanks! When one looks at this stuff its easy to see that the planet has experienced such highs and lows in its past - without the benefit of industrialization to effect it. As I said before, sure mankind has an effect in this, but I simply dont think (personally) that the effect is as great as people make out.....rather like a bug hitting the windshield of a car traveling down the road. The earth is going to go throught these cycles......the frothy actions of us humans are going to alter that cycle very little in my humble opinion.

 

[Kozmos]

 

[Norlamand]

Perhaps we should offer a tax break to pirates and privateers?

 

[Urederra]

You don't think there are some who deny Global Climate Change for that very reason?

so, it is politics, and not science, after all.

 

[MobBoss]

Your chart is obviously in error. There are still way more pirates in the world than you think. Tons of them still in the South West Pacific and off the East Coast of Africa.

Dont tell me you didnt catch that story of Pirates opening fire on that cruise ship not long ago. Here check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/11/05/somalia.pirates/index.html and http://www.cdnn.info/news/travel/t051107.html

A small quote:

He said the seas off Somalia, which has had no government since 1991, had been the scene of 23 reported attacks since March this year, including two UN relief ships.

He said seamen would be calling for the declaration of war because it would entitle them to insurance cover, danger money and the right to refuse to sail in areas notorious for pirate activity.

He added: "There have been so many attacks off Somalia we are urging the war zone declaration and we are also urging the British government to do something.

"We believe there should be a naval task force, particularly off Somalia, to try and stop the attacks.

In the past 10 years, hundreds of seamen have been killed and thousands injured in pirate attacks across the world."

"It's got to the stage where it's anarchy on the sea waves and this latest incident shows it's time governments got their acts together."

Yeah....I defnitely think your chart is way off base and not very scientific at all.

 

[blargh]

I think it's more business than anything, besides being a crock. The price of uranium hasn't been as high as it has been in decades, nuclear energy is suddenly becoming an attraactive option and some this 1990'ish environmentalism is suddenly not so environmentaly correct. Some recycling and biodegradeable products becomes counterproductive is CO2 driven climate change is true, because if it is we should be burying (ie. landfilling ) every last scrap of garbage.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So we have the 10Be concentracion vs solar activity. Interesting. However it would be interesting to have some relevant info. Here you can see some:

Surface temperatures compared with sunspot numbers since 1858:

Surface temperatures compared with sunspot numbers since 1858:

Surface temperatures compared with solar cycle length since 1858

www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

 

[blackheart]

I think the next headline for a global warming article should read: More pointless graphs to correlate blatantly confusing information with.

 

[Truronian]

So we have the 10Be concentracion vs solar activity. Interesting. However it would be interesting to have some relevant info. Here you can see some:

Just an observation, but all those graph seem to show a recent gap forming between the two lines. That said, I've never really been trusting of statistics, these could be relevent or irrelevent.

Your chart is obviously in error. There are still way more pirates in the world than you think. Tons of them still in the South West Pacific and off the East Coast of Africa.

This graph refers only to traditional pirates . If you don't adhere to pirate cliché, you ain't a pirate.

 

[Sidhe]

Well as this post so aptly demonstrates you are going to believe what you believe if you don't try and learn something about the subject, I started off as indifferent, then learnt a little about the science behind it and found myself more and more convinced, really want to see the counter evidence though, it makes it all complete. I suggest people do the same, it's not obvious, just look into the holistic issue and make up your own mind. Keep looking into it, keep learning, don't come down on one side out of ignorance. Be scientific, If you want to talk about this issue, keep digging. Anything else is conjecture, and not worthy of discussion as such, other than the usual arm waving philosophy this topic brings. If you''re going to make up your mind, make sure you have something to make up your mind on, not politics, cmon waste of everyones time.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

More pointless graphs to correlate blatantly confusing information with.

Care to explain how surface temperatures vs solar activity data is pointless in this topic?

 

[blackheart]

Care to explain how surface temperatures vs solar activity data is pointless in this topic?

I am actually waiting for someone else to pull out another graph explaning something else. My statement wasn't specifically directed at you, however, it was a general comment.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I was mowing the other day, and thought about all the irrigation we're doing. We're pumping water out of the water-table faster than it's being returned. And we're pumping it to where we let it evaporate (crops).

Since evaporated water is a greenhouse gas, and our irrigation has increased ... I wonder if water could be blamed instead.

No. The retention time of water in the atmosphere is 9 days on average. The water cycle is very stable, and any water we pump into the atmosphere is quickly returned. By contrast, the atmospheric RT of most greenhouse gases is on the order of decades. H2O is a greenhouse gas, and indeed much of the greenhouse effect that makes this planet livable is due to atm H2O. But water maintains a "stable" and unchanging presence in our atmosphere. It's not responsible for global warming.

There ARE two problems related to excess water usage.

The first is that when we pump real greenhouse gases (like CO2 or CFCs) into the atmosphere, we create a direct global warming effect. The resulting rising temperatures create an indirect effect: as temperatures rise, the atmosphere can hold more evaporated water. Of course, H2O is also a potent greenhouse gas, so this causes a vicious cycle of positive feedback (the result causes the cause to occur again). Want to know what happens when a cycle like this gets out of control? Visit Venus.

The second, more obvious problem is that when we overuse our water resources we are ignoring the fact that they are to a degree nonrenewable because the vast majority of water "returns" to us as either saltwater or ice. It's a lot more difficult to extract pure drinking water from either of these sources. But that's unrelated to global warming.

 

[pboily]

so, it is politics, and not science, after all.

Of course. Which is why it's a mess in the first place.