He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is also a twisted argument that even if climate science is wrong in regards to the cause of global climate change what they propose is still good because it helps reduce pollution. You don't try fight one thing by aiming at another. Fight pollution and call it fighting pollution, not climate change.
 
Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy 2005

Lastly, the exploring the feasibility of investigating anyone who questions climate change science by the Attorney General Loretta Lynch - prodded by the Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - sheds light on how real this science is.

Actually to me, that is just another case of shedding light on the utterly dysfunctional and undemocratic US political system. It's got nothing to do with climate science nor climate scientists nor any of the AGW/CC issues. But that's only my opinion. :-)
 
Vast majority of dire predictions did not materialise, ....
Interesting. Can you name one? And show us exactly where and by which climate scientist/paper/ippc report it was predicted to occur?
And then show us the proof of how it did not materialise by X date/time frame?

Express doubt and instead of being called the opponent of the theory you're marked with the derogatory "denier".
Yes that's very unfair and unhelpful, when it happens. But you know what really pisses me off? It is when outspoken feminists online have labeled me as a disgusting misogynist for simply questioning their assumptions and thinking. :-)

imo, the hallmark of true climate science are the ongoing debates, research and discussions that have always been going on within the scientific community and are continuing today. Much like the crowd at the stadium nor the TV audience decide who wins the Super Bowl. :-)
 
This short article may not help much, but it may lead to further individual research and/or thinking about the difficulties involved in adequate public outreach and the challenges of understanding complex science to even a basic level.
How can we know whether a claim someone makes is scientific or not? The question is of the utmost consequence, as we are surrounded on all sides by claims that sound credible, that use the language of science—and often do so in attempts to refute scientific consensus. As we’ve seen in the case of the anti-vaccine crusade, falling victim to pseudoscientific arguments can have dire effects. So how can ordinary people, ordinary parents, and ordinary citizens evaluate such arguments? http://www.openculture.com/2016/04/...-telling-science-from-pseudoscience-1966.html

I'm tossing this in because it may explain everything that is wrong with the "dummies guide" referenced above. That was written by scientists who (I believe) view Feynman very highly and claim to follow his recommendations for communicating with the public. Oh if only "simple methods" were so simple and easy hey? :)
 
12744251_10154333209369239_245287521891822382_n.jpg

3bdb193e041306b11da27bd400de3b54.jpg

SC-img2-24-July.jpg


image.jpg


21ea4cc7eeb49f1f35c4568b5d905152.jpg


97599d45f27da67a901193e930b96ba0.jpg
 
That may depend on what you actually mean by "catastrophic AGW". You'll need to define what you believe that is.
Frankly, I don't see such questions or the answers very useful to anyone. To me it's like asking "how long is a piece of string?" And then, do I think it's too long or too short.
Well it depends. :) Do you see what I mean by that and why it matters in discussions about such complex issues as AGW/CC, the data and the science about it?

There are three possible answers. Yes, no, or don't know. I'm trying to assess what your position on catastrophic AGW is. "Catastrophic" means that AGW is happening and it is, on balance, harmful to humanity and/or the environment. So will you answer my question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
No. There are 4 possible answers. :)
I do not accept the question as valid or useful. There are some issues with your question you will need to deal with first.
See above and also:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/catastrophic
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/catastrophic
and
http://www.mediacollege.com/journalism/interviews/leading-questions.html

I don't have time for these kinds of games. As of now, I've put you on ignore.
 
"I don't have time for these kinds of games. As of now, I've put you on ignore."

Is this what you do to anyone who stands up to you Michael? Doing so only reflects badly on yourself. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's my opinion.

And I'm saying that not because I have anything in particular against you, although I find that you sometimes 'push my buttons', I enjoy many of your posts and only the other day genuinely complimented you on what I think is the broadest vocabulary on display.

We need people like PTEHA joining the forum,' ignoring ' them is not the way forward.
 
I don't have time for these kinds of games. As of now, I've put you on ignore.
OK. Works for me. :-)

As I have already said, it is self-evident that there is a scientific consensus about the reality of AGW/CC. My "position" is that I am very comfortable with the current consensus. Questions about sudden/catastrophic simply don't come into it. "Harmful" is a value judgement. That's why the scientists call it Climate Change, and not Climate Harm. They deal in facts not people's emotions about the facts. :-)
 
Is this what you do to anyone who stands up to you Michael? Doing so only reflects badly on yourself. I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's my opinion.

And I'm saying that not because I have anything in particular against you, although I find that you sometimes 'push my buttons', I enjoy many of your posts and only the other day genuinely complimented you on what I think is the broadest vocabulary on display.

We need people like PTEHA joining the forum,' ignoring ' them is not the way forward.

Steve, I don't want to fall out with you and you're entitled to your opinion. However, PT has been engaging in sophistry of a kind that I find especially irritating. He's as slippery as an eel and appears to be involved in this thread simply for the fun of trying to wind people up. I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of doing that, hence my putting him on ignore. I hope no one else tries to engage with him, because he doesn't want to be engaged with, and will lead them on a merry dance with his faux intellectualism.
 
Last edited:
Steve, I don't want to fall out with you and you're entitled to your opinion. However, PT has been engaging in sophistry of a kind that I find especially irritating. He's as slippery as an eel and appears to be involved in this thread simply for the fun of trying to wind people up. I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of doing that, hence my putting him on ignore. I hope no one else tries to engage with him, because he doesn't want to be engaged with, and will lead them on a merry dance with his faux intellectualism.

Mmm, I'm not so sure.

PT seems to be putting up a fine argument that is both confident of his position and backed up with scientific papers. I see no evidence of him "trying to wind people up", the only person that's getting wound up is you. Hoping that "no one else tries to engage with him...." What the hell is all that about? Let's see.

Once before in the (epic) CAGW thread you argued with someone that said to you that they had genuine concerns about the stance 'deniers' take. He made robust responses to your arguments, and after a long period of to's & fro's in my opinion he seemed to be gaining the upper hand. At this point you started claiming that he had just 'parachuted in' to the forum, like he was James Bond or something. So what if he joined because he felt strongly enough about what he saw as harmful opinions being offered without much counter-argument. I happen to know that everything he claimed about his scientific credentials, about his own motives were genuine, in spite of the off topic dispersions cast upon him.

I saw that you changed your tack when up against someone at least your equal, I see the same thing now. Instead of presenting an argument that will stand up, you would rather 'dis' them. I may not have the intellect to pick apart scientific arguments, but I am confident of my abilities to recognise when confidently arguing ones position turns to ad hominem attack.
 
Mmm, I'm not so sure.

PT seems to be putting up a fine argument that is both confident of his position and backed up with scientific papers. I see no evidence of him "trying to wind people up", the only person that's getting wound up is you. Hoping that "no one else tries to engage with him...." What the hell is all that about? Let's see.

Once before in the (epic) CAGW thread you argued with someone that said to you that they had genuine concerns about the stance 'deniers' take. He made robust responses to your arguments, and after a long period of to's & fro's in my opinion he seemed to be gaining the upper hand. At this point you started claiming that he had just 'parachuted in' to the forum, like he was James Bond or something. So what if he joined because he felt strongly enough about what he saw as harmful opinions being offered without much counter-argument. I happen to know that everything he claimed about his scientific credentials, about his own motives were genuine, in spite of the off topic dispersions cast upon him.

I saw that you changed your tack when up against someone at least your equal, I see the same thing now. Instead of presenting an argument that will stand up, you would rather 'dis' them. I may not have the intellect to pick apart scientific arguments, but I am confident of my abilities to recognise when confidently arguing ones position turns to ad hominem attack.

Duly noted.
 
So... Where I live, the cows outnumber humans 50 to 1. Going for a walk today, I said hi to all the cute young calves frolicking in the flowery green fields. It was an absolutely beautiful spring day. It made me wonder... Let's say hypothetically speaking, the vegans have their way... What becomes of all our bovine buddies? They can't live in the wild. I guess someone here and there might keep one for a pet. Maybe a zoo would take some in. Would going vegan really be the best thing for these cute little guys?

I don't have Netflix anymore otherwise I'd watch the documentary. I know there's some serious things wrong with our food supply these days including the corn fed cows. But if cows are raised ethically and happily on lush green pastures and have a painless death, I don't really see the harm in it.

The sight of butchered meat doesn't bother me. Every year my father and I would bring home 5 or 6 deer and process them all ourselves. As a kid I kinda hated it (I hated all work), but now I'm glad to have the experience. Nature is full of predator prey relationships. Are the predators morally reprehensible? At least we don't rip our prey apart and crunch it alive. I'd say on the whole we're rather humane predators.

It is available on YouTube:


I'd like to know your opinion about it ... Regards.
 
OK. Now that Michael has steeped aside and does not want to hear what I say that gives me the floor. :)
However, PT has been engaging in sophistry of a kind that I find especially irritating. He's as slippery as an eel and appears to be involved in this thread simply for the fun of trying to wind people up.
That's an "opinion". Doesn't make it true. I'm more inclined to call it MMS - the mirror-mirror syndrome. :) Maybe a picture can tell a thousand words here?

he doesn't want to be engaged with
Now that's a faux "belief" with absolutely no evidence to support it. I know what I want, and I know what I will accept during discussions, not Michael. He isn't a psychic. I know that for certain. :) However he can and he will believe whatever he wants to about anything. It's got nothing to do with me, imo.

and will lead them on a merry dance with his faux intellectualism.
That is more "faux psychism" with some adhominem sting in the tail. That's what I call "sophistry", as well as the question about "catastrophic AGW". A healthy way to defeat sophistry is to get very very specific about what the person is really trying to say/ask. To be aware of questions that are possibly intended to set you up for a fall. A good way to avoid that happening is to not allow oneself get cornered in the first place. I am already aware of all the commonly used "talking points" about AGW. :)

This is difficult to see coming without experience, and also difficult to resolve in txt communications. Especially if one person is not being open and genuine and respectful that other people come to their own opinions and beliefs in their own way and in their own time -- and accepting that we as individuals on discussion forums usually have absolutely no idea what someone else already knows, how someone has already thought it through to arrive at their particular "positions". Simply asking simplistic questions about another's position using loaded questions isn't genuine, it is usually manipulative rhetoric = sophistry in my world.

Suddenly changing the subject matter already detailed in a conversation into a general point of difference is a sign that something is not quite as it seems. There are ways to find that out really quickly if you know how to do it. These kinds of twists and turns could also be unconscious and/or a matter of a lack of awareness or competence, or something else. But that's not my problem nor my responsibility to manage or to accept it, or to allow another person to take over how and where the conversation is going because that's what they want. What about what I want? :-)


In modern usage, sophism, sophist and sophistry are redefined and used disparagingly. A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

So if anyone is going to publicly accuse me of using sophistry, then should they not also be required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I have actually been using fallacious and deceptive arguments? As opposed to simply not liking or not agreeing what it is I have said or opine/believe myself.

Others may see this very differently than I, but I think I have been very clear, open, and specific in all my comments - and where possible included references that explain where I am coming from and a little background as to why that is so. I have not demanded that anyone agree with me, or else. I already know people think all kinds of things about the topic of AGW/CC .... and pretty much know all the possible reasons as to why they see it that way.

That, and I know for certain that I am not into this topic "just for fun". It's far too serious a matter to joke about. Plus I know this topic inside and out, from the science to the heated discussions about it and why so many people get so bent out of shape about it on discussion forums and websites. One being that they all take it very seriously as well. Or they would not bother saying a word about it in the first place. Cheers to everyone, except Michael who isn't reading this. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[50% Off-Topic] I have been waiting patiently for this GenIV nuclear powered electricity generator to come online for almost 5 years now. Only 18 months away now.
“This technology is going to be on the world market within the next five years,” Zhang predicts. “We are developing these reactors to belong to the world.”
The twin 105-megawatt reactors—so-called Generation IV reactors that would be immune to meltdown—would be the first of their type built at commercial scale in the world.
Such high-temperature reactors are immune to meltdown because they don’t require elaborate external cooling systems of the sort that failed at Fukushima, Japan, in 2011.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...e-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/
https://www.rt.com/news/332254-china-meltdown-free-reactor/
http://qz.com/581566/new-nuclear-reactors-are-being-built-a-lot-more-like-cars/

A total of 64 Nuclear Reactors are now under construction globally = 63,000 MW (63 GW)
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[100% on topic] Another Richard P. Feynman quote:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
from the Shuttle Presidential Commission 1986
For only 16 short words that sentence really does say a lot, especially if one thinks about it deeply and where it might lead.

This March 10, 2016 lecture is by one of the better communicators on AGW/CC issues - Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester (... previously director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK’s leading academic climate change research organisation) He is another person who replies to genuine email inquiries from the public. http://kevinanderson.info/

 
It is available on YouTube:


I'd like to know your opinion about it ... Regards.

I haven't watched it all yet, but my initial reaction is that there are two issues here. The first is deforestation due to making land available for cattle--along with its effect on water usage--which has some genuine merit as an environmental argument. The second is the greenhouse effect due to increased methane, which is much more contentious. To put it into context, here is a diagram from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth:

220px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png


Legend: Composition of Earth's atmosphere by volume. The lower pie represents the trace gases that together compose about 0.038% of the atmosphere (0.043% with CO2 at 2014 concentration). The numbers are from a variety of years (mainly 1987, with CO2 and methane from 2009) and do not represent any single source.

Methane is CH4, which is said to be 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, CO2. Taking Wikipedia's figure of 0.043% for trace gases, and ignoring the amounts due to non-greenhouse gases (Neon, Helium, Krypton and Hydrogen), there is 0.00018% of the greenhouse gas, Methane (CH4). That is roughly equivalent in greenhouse effect to 23 x 0.00018% = 0.00414% CO2. Hence by my maths, the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is roughly equivalent to 0.04 + 0.00414 = 0.04414% CO2.

Methane comes from a lot of industrial, natural inorganic, and organic sources. It comes not only from cows, but all animals, e.g. termites, in fairly significant amounts (in relation to the global total of CH4). If my maths is correct, in total, Methane is only around 1/10th as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, simply because there's much more CO2 than methane. If so, I can't see what the fuss is about cows and greenhouse gases.

That said, the other issues, deforestation due to making land available for cows, and also their water usage, are worth looking at: as is deforestation due to making land available for planting biofuel crops, or, indeed, deforestation due to any man-made cause.

There may be mitigating effects:

a. Conscious re-forestation efforts
b. Increased plant growth due to increased CO2 (it is plant food, remember)

Also, the issue about water isn't the same everywhere: it depends on the water supply, which may be plentiful in some areas, and scarce in others. The most worrying thing to me would be the amount of deforestation of the Amazon. It's difficult to get hold of accurate figures, though.
 
Last edited:
It is available on YouTube:


I'd like to know your opinion about it ... Regards.

Well done documentary. Thanks for sharing. :)

I found the conspiratorial aspect interesting (the threats and suits and the one killing by the big agri gang) and it does make sense for more people to grow vegetables locally in order to have lower food prices and a more stable sustainable food supply. And that I think is at the root of the conspiracy... Not that big agri-business just wants to protect their turf (although that's certainly part of it), but that the globalists don't want cheap local food and don't want land freed up for people to expand subdivisions into. Big ranches and farms keep the land tied up and provide more expensive food which aids the agenda. Globalists want every region dependent on other regions and want people herded and corralled into smaller and smaller metropolitan spaces as the population is being reduced through war, plague, vaccines, expensive energy, expensive food, chemicals in the food and water supply, abortions, etc.

So the fact that all these "green" organizations and politicians are not fighting agri-business over "emissions" but are only focusing on fossil fuel usage is a big flaw in their narrative... (Kinda like getting angry at Putin for stepping in to fight ISIS while claiming we also want to fight ISIS) a big hypocrisy which provides a window into the ulterior agenda: depopulation through raising prices shrinking habitable land area, and globalization.

Okay so far so good... but much of the rest of the video I could not get on board with. I think he conflates a lot of non-issues or issues not related to global warming together in a disjointed way. Like what does over fishing have to do with cows? What does the "alleged" amount of water consumed by cows have to do with global warming?

As to whether the extra .00007% of methane in the atmospheric composition is a real increase or dangerous for the earth... I can't say for sure, but I am obviously very suspicious of all claims regarding such data because it is such a political issue tied in with a globalist depopulation agenda in which we're lied to about everything.

Some of his numbers I think were chosen for worst case hyperbolic effect... Like for example his discussion on grass fed beef where he chose NPR's projected 2012 number of 270 lbs of total meat per person rather than the USDA's number of 72 lbs of red meat (which is not just beef) per person. 1 cow which takes 2 years to mature yields 490 lbs of beef or 245 lbs per year which could feed 3.58 people 3 oz of high quality meat/day on 2.5 to 30 acres depending on climate. Where I live it's about 5-6 acres. Let's say 10 acres average. That's 2.79 acres per person times 320 million is 890 million acres of grazing land. Currently 634 million acres is used for grazing. So yes more land would be needed to switch over to grass fed beef for America's red meat demand, but his graphic showing all land surface (including mountains forests and cities) in north and part of South America... That's off.

Also many sustainable grass fed beef farmers use the same grazing land for pigs and chickens by rotating paddocks. So the yield goes up. First the cows stay in the paddock and munch the growth laying cow pies everywhere which is good fertilizer. Then the chickens come along and eat the bugs and fertilize the soil more. Then the hogs are let in to root around and aerate the soil and of course add more fertilizer. It is really a very environmentally friendly method of food production. I know a bit about this because a guy I went to college with for engineering began suffering with Crohn's disease and tried various diets to get over it. He found that a natural diet free of chemicals and with all natural grass fed beef and raw milk etc cured him. So he and his wife and dad bought a farm near here and have worked it as I described above. They deliver their products directly to local customers at local health food stores.

The water thing really annoys me. He compares the cows water usage to the fracking industry and then talks about the California drought... A series of non-sequiturs that leave one with the general impression evil cows are drinking up California's water. California has grown quite a bit since the 70s when the last reservoir was built. And in the age of weather modification, there could be other actors at play here.

Using water is not bad for the environment unless you're talking about the electricity used in pumping and treating it in a city water supply. The water itself isn't going away. It's a renewable resource every time it rains, so it bugs me when they portray water usage like we've only got so much to go around and then it's gone forever. Yes we should conserve water used in our homes because in a summer drought the reservoir might run dry and it also saves on electricity usage but that electricity amounts to maybe .25 kWh per day for 100 gallons per day if you're on well water like I am. Maybe three or four times that on city water, but really that is minuscule. Your computer probably uses a lot more electricity. For a hot shower add 1 kWh. Shorter showers saves energy since your hot water heater is a power hog, but water isn't the issue. If the reservoir runs low in a hot summer that's a problem for the people on the city water, but not usually a problem for the environment because the same amount of water is still in the environment.

Stock ponds don't use any electricity and don't harm the environment. The rain water that gets soaked into the grass and eaten by the cows doesn't disappear from the water-cycle.

Clear cutting vast swathes of rainforest to turn it into ranch land is a legit problem. Usage of GMO, steroids, antibiotics, and factory farming are all legit issues but in regards to ethical treatment of animals and human health - not global warming.

Do we waste a lot of food and eat too much? Sure, we can do better. More local gardens (and small family farms like the one described above) will be better for everyone.

Let me know your thoughts on my thoughts. In the mean time, here's a howdy from some of my neighbors :) (took this on a walk yesterday while listening to the cowspiracy)

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
To put it in perspective, I looked up the amount of water in lake Superior, which is 3,000,000,000,000,000 (3 quadrillion) gallons (see http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/superior/superiorfacts.html)--enough to cover North and South America to a depth of 1 foot. Then I looked up figures for world beef production in 2012 (see http://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-cattle-statistics-0-108033) and found that was 128,936,031,000 lbs.

That gives 23,267 gallons per pound of beef in the world just from lake Superior. Which is, of course, continually refreshed by the inflow from 300 rivers and streams. I don't think water is really the problem except in areas of particular scarcity--where cows probably wouldn't be reared in any case.

There are, however, about 1.4 billion cattle in the world. Every cow requires about 1.8 acres for grazing if it isn't provided with other food; that's 2,520,000,000 acres, or 3,937,500 square miles (just a fraction bigger than the USA). However, cows are given other food, grown much more efficiently on other arable land. Even so, I think there's a good case for reducing global beef consumption. I personally don't eat that much beef: more chicken, pork and lamb, which don't require so much land per animal. Certainly, if we reduced beef production by, say, half, I don't think it would be an insuperable hardship, and would save a fair amount of land. If in addition to that we stopped planting biofuel crops on deforested land, and replanted most or all of the land saved with trees, we'd probably be well on the way to solving the problem.

I agree with Hurmanetar that environmental groups are avoiding confrontation on these issues, instead attempting to pin all the world's ills on greenhouse gasses, which in my view have trivial global effects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top