Copen' With Copenhagen - Grab a Hagen Das, and Enjoy

[North Shore]

But we have built a society that is so absolutely dependent on large quantities of energy that to cut GHGs 50% by 2050 (one of the goals put forth I believe) will require such a radical change in lifestyle that it is virtually incomprehensible. This while we have a global population still growing, emerging consumerism in the Third World, and an entire society sustained by the consumption of energy.

And where, exactly is all of that energy going to come from? Oil, Coal, Uranium? All of those things will run out, sooner or later. But, at the moment they are relatively cheap. As far as I'm concerned, the time is now to move us away from those energy sources and towards renewables. If a carbon tax is part of that shift, then so be it.
The other thing is that it is almost criminal, IMHO, to still be looking at oil as an energy source, compared to its other uses. There are lots of other ways of powering our society, but not as many efficient ways of lubricating things, making plastics, fertiliser, and the other 1001 things that we make from oil...

[Rockie]

MmmmmHmmmmm....but we weren't talking about heat and ice, we were talking about where the heat is coming from, and that is a very complex issue.

The only complex part of it is accurately predicting the timelines for future consequences of GW. That we are contributing to it has been obvious for a long time.

1. No one can deny we are pumping billions of tons of GHG's into the atmosphere, and the amount we produce increases greatly every year. The ppm concentration is easily measurable, and simple (for some) math can determine fairly accurately how much we are responsible for.

2. GHG's have a known, scientifically proven warming effect. As a human race we have been using the principles of heat retention since we first built fires in front of our caves, so no one can seriously dispute this without opening themselves to well deserved ridicule.

3. The heat comes from the sun, and GHG's retain it beyond what the earth does normally.

The denier lobby uses the difficulties we have in accurately predicting timelines as proof MMGW doesn't exist. Of course it exists. How could it not? We already have ample proof that our climate is warming, and the fact we have trouble accurately estimating the date of our demise takes nothing away from the inescapable fact we are contributing to it.

We have to change our ways. Canada is being an irresponsible laggard as far as that's concerned, and is also missing the boat on cashing in on new environmental technologies. China is going the other way and will be inventing those technologies themselves. They will be selling it to countries like ours, when it should be us selling to them.

[mcrit]

The only complex part of it is accurately predicting the timelines for future consequences of GW.

No. There is still a good deal of debate among scientists (don't confuse a scientist with a politician) as to what the global temperature is doing. Some studies show us in a global cooling trend, some show that if we are warming its part of a natural cycle. Bottom line is that we don't know.

[Rockie]

The only complex part of it is accurately predicting the timelines for future consequences of GW.

No. There is still a good deal of debate among scientists (don't confuse a scientist with a politician) as to what the global temperature is doing. Some studies show us in a global cooling trend, some show that if we are warming its part of a natural cycle. Bottom line is that we don't know.

Forest and trees. Stop looking at the trees.

Ice has been disappearing for a long time now. I've seen it my entire life myself. That tells me all I need to know about which direction the temperature is going. We are unquestionably contributing to it for reasons stated above. I don't need numbers and contradicting studies to figure out what's staring us in the face.

[mcrit]

That tells me all I need to know about which direction the temperature is going. We are unquestionably contributing to it for reasons stated above.

If you don't ask questions you're letting someone else do your thinking for you.

There are a number of scientists that disagree about what the temperature is doing and why it is doing it. They have more than anecdotal "I've seen ice melting" observations backing them up. That makes me question.

[Rockie]

That tells me all I need to know about which direction the temperature is going. We are unquestionably contributing to it for reasons stated above.

If you don't ask questions you're letting someone else do your thinking for you.

There are a number of scientists that disagree about what the temperature is doing and why it is doing it. They have more than anecdotal "I've seen ice melting" observations backing them up. That makes me question.

I only call myself an uneducated hick out of modesty, in reality I'm not at all stupid.

I never accept anything said at face value and I always give it the smell test...no matter who said it. The "unquestionable" part is my own determination after lots of reading on both sides of the issue combined with my own observations. The details are still to be worked out, but the fundamental problem is clear for anybody to see.

[mcrit]

I only call myself an uneducated hick out of modesty, in reality I'm not at all stupid.

I never said you were.

The "unquestionable" part is my own determination after lots of reading on both sides of the issue combined with my own observations.

I've done a fair bit of reading on it to, and I'm still asking questions.

[trampbike]

Do you guys really think that saying crap about Gore or Suzuki actually brings something to the scientific debate? I'm not saying what theses guys claim is perfect or even right, I'm just saying attacking them does not in anyway proves that man does not affect climate. Using logical fallacies does not improves the skeptics credibility. I've read that topic and most of what is written consists of ad hominen attacks, abusive generalisations, straw man and authority arguments, false dillemas and a whole bunch of other lamef things human do sometimes on purpose and sometimes without even realising it.

I have a question for the "skeptics" (I hate this name, because being skeptic is part of being able to think critically and is a big chunk of the scientific method. However, the climate skeptics -and the environment catastrophists- have nothing to do with the real meaning of the word):

So, when your logic and science fails I see that you revert to the very sad tactics your so called unthinking skeptics relate to. Straw men arguments, logical fallacies, arguments from authority, abusive generalizations (as proven by your characterization that climate skeptics are unthinking ignoramus'), and ad hominem arguments..

Sorry for my bad English. I meant that skeptic is a term used way too much often by people who are everything but real skeptics. Don't get me wrong, I think the same about much of the skeptics of the skeptics!

Both "sides" really need to look themselves in the mirror and realize that the very fact they chose to be on one side or the other is very problematic.

[Rockie]

I only call myself an uneducated hick out of modesty, in reality I'm not at all stupid.

I never said you were.

I know.

The "unquestionable" part is my own determination after lots of reading on both sides of the issue combined with my own observations.

I've done a fair bit of reading on it to, and I'm still asking questions.

I never stop asking questions, but at some point the weight of evidence and reasoning sways the argument and decisions have to be made. I've made mine despite largely irrelevant setbacks like East Anglia. In the big scheme of things it changes nothing. How long do you want to navel gaze before making a determination?

[RampGurl]

OFD, way to call someone an ignorant slut without directly calling them an ignorant slut. That's clever stuff you ignorant slut!

And for all those who love to diss Al Gore, lets see you bring forward a movie that opposes his argument thats backed up by half as much scientific data. Oh let me guess... all scientific data regarding man made global warming is now void in light of a few recent e-mails.

Here you go:
It's called "The Great Global Warming Swindle

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs

[2R]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8y8HOJz ... re=related

the high priests of weather before the sacrifice,enjoy
sorry i am unable to translate the rest that follows

[BoostedNihilist]

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but I'm not a scientist and don't know the exact answer to that. But good old common dog f**k tells me that more ppm's = warmer, and fewer ppm's = not as warm. The right direction to go here seems pretty obvious even to an uneducated hick like me.

Well then, how can you tell me that my contributions are making an impact? I mean, you simplified argument may or may not be relevant, we have discussed before that correlation, in scientific terms, does not equal causation, yet, this is what you seek to convince me of... this is VERY unscientific.. as are common dog fucks..

The only complex part of it is accurately predicting the timelines for future consequences of GW. That we are contributing to it has been obvious for a long time.

More of the same, an unscientific argument backed up with fear tactics.. sure there is a correlation, however you and your friends cannot prove causation, or else, there would be no debate, yet here we are... I am not making a determination on the cause of global warming, merely pointing out the fact that you cannot prove your assumption.

Besides, the SUN is going to have an impact, what if the sun cools to the point where we need to warm our atmosphere to prevent an ice age? This change could happen SO quickly we wouldn't be able to warm the atmosphere enough to prevent the ice age.. So, we better have a plan for when our actions against global warming flip to the other extreme and we have no solution for global cooling.. Or, we could just continue to chase these naturally occuring cycles just for the sake of doing something..

You might not be an uneducated hick, but you sure are brainwashed.

[Dust Devil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8y8HOJz ... re=related

the high priests of weather before the sacrifice,enjoy
sorry i am unable to translate the rest that follows

http://glaswegian.info/

[mcrit]

I never stop asking questions, but at some point the weight of evidence and reasoning sways the argument and decisions have to be made.

Haste makes waste. I'm not going to let someone's scare tactics stampede me into a bad position. You want me to reduce GHG, that's fine, but I'll set realistic targets that won't destroy my economy and I'm not going to pay even more money to the 'developing' world by way of buying carbon quota (because that's what this is all about....$$$$).

[Rockie]

More of the same, an unscientific argument backed up with fear tactics.. sure there is a correlation, however you and your friends cannot prove causation, or else, there would be no debate, yet here we are... I am not making a determination on the cause of global warming, merely pointing out the fact that you cannot prove your assumption.

Unscientific?

If you insulate something and add heat will it get warmer than without insulation? Nothing scary or unscientific about that, it's just common knowledge applied to this situation that everybody including you should know.

The proof you seem to need would mean we've already gone too far. I personally don't care to go that far just to convince you since people around the world are already convinced. I don't find it difficult to make the correlation between increase MMGHG's and increased warmth. I also don't need to actually turn on a stove to know what the result will be there either. Increase GHG's and you will increase the temperature. Ice is disappearing proving that it is getting warmer.

Good enough for me.

Hopefully you will never get your proof.

[ragbagflyer]

Why is the antarctic ice growing?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png

It's not, but massive amounts of ice are calving off the antarctic ice shelf into the ocean.

[trampbike]

More of the same, an unscientific argument backed up with fear tactics.. sure there is a correlation, however you and your friends cannot prove causation, or else, there would be no debate, yet here we are... I am not making a determination on the cause of global warming, merely pointing out the fact that you cannot prove your assumption.

Unscientific?

If you insulate something and add heat will it get warmer than without insulation? Nothing scary or unscientific about that, it's just common knowledge applied to this situation that everybody including you should know.

The proof you seem to need would mean we've already gone too far. I personally don't care to go that far just to convince you since people around the world are already convinced. I don't find it difficult to make the correlation between increase MMGHG's and increased warmth. I also don't need to actually turn on a stove to know what the result will be there either. Increase GHG's and you will increase the temperature. Ice is disappearing proving that it is getting warmer.

Good enough for me.

Hopefully you will never get your proof.

Rockie, I really respect your enthusiasm defending your ideas, but I think you adventure yourself onto very slippery slopes trying to simplify too much the science of climate. I hope you do not believe that the skeptics never thought about the "obvious facts" you point out all the time. Lots of them are intelligent people with something to say, so I don't think you help your cause by oversimplifying the science.

I would really love to see a consensus around this debate that revolves around false arguments (on both sides most of the time) for wrong reasons. What I would love to see is something like this:

Climate science is not exact and what we infer from the data is not flawless. As a precautionary principle, we should act to reduce pollution (read there: POLLUTION, not only CO2!) and review the whole economy, because the way it's working right now, well it won't be working forever. Economy and environment should not oppose, but be seen as a whole, since the former needs the later at the very base. China started to realized that the way they were developing would not continue to be viable for very long. Lots of studies (which I'm way too lazy right now to dig out) calculated the cost of reducing pollution was high indeed, but not acting would cost even more, and we are not only talking about long term here. Finally, let's not make our opinion based on Gore's dramatic scenarios or scientists biased by oil companies.

[Rockie]

Rockie, I really respect your enthusiasm defending your ideas, but I think you adventure yourself onto very slippery slopes trying to simplify too much the science of climate. I hope you do not believe that the skeptics never thought about the "obvious facts" you point out all the time. Lots of them are intelligent people with something to say, so I don't think you help your cause by oversimplifying the science.

I take the reams of information given out by the scientists and try to frame it in references that I can understand. Maybe I'm simple, but to me this is a simple concept really. I learned to do that flying airplanes actually. Big aircraft manufacturers build complex airplanes using complex terms and complex procedures, but at the end of the day the principles in operating the big airplanes is no different than operating little ones. Only the scale is different. Same with climate.

I know that there are a lot of things that go into the balance of nature here on earth, and that to a degree the earth can absorb the abuse we inflict on it. Only to a degree though. We are adding massive quantities of GHG's to an atmosphere that had just enough already to maintain a worldwide climate that serves us humans well. We are upsetting that balance with contaminates that have proven characteristics at the same time we are systematically destroying earths ability to absorb GHG's. That kind of cause and effect is very simple even if it's on a global scale.

I don't know why people fail to see that relationship. Maybe it's the same reason people forget basic aircraft handling principles when they get into a big airplane. I know that for some their hatred and distrust of Gore/Suzuki strips away their ability to look at this issue in an unbiased manner. I suspect some other people are just incapable of drawing simple logical conclusions without seeing proof positive in their own hands. Others are frankly fooled by the energy industry and their massive campaign to discredit MMGW, probably the same people convinced the American government blew up the WTC.

It doesn't matter if I think of it in simple terms. Stephen Hawking does a pretty good job explaining spectacularly complex theories in terms us simpletons can understand, and I think that's what needs to be done with MMGW.

ps. Scepticism is good. Blind denial of proven science is not.

[Brewguy]

But we have built a society that is so absolutely dependent on large quantities of energy that to cut GHGs 50% by 2050 (one of the goals put forth I believe) will require such a radical change in lifestyle that it is virtually incomprehensible. This while we have a global population still growing, emerging consumerism in the Third World, and an entire society sustained by the consumption of energy.

And where, exactly is all of that energy going to come from? Oil, Coal, Uranium? All of those things will run out, sooner or later. But, at the moment they are relatively cheap. As far as I'm concerned, the time is now to move us away from those energy sources and towards renewables. If a carbon tax is part of that shift, then so be it.
The other thing is that it is almost criminal, IMHO, to still be looking at oil as an energy source, compared to its other uses. There are lots of other ways of powering our society, but not as many efficient ways of lubricating things, making plastics, fertiliser, and the other 1001 things that we make from oil...

I've been following this thread a little bit over the last few days ... not sure who that was you were quoting North Shore (just briefly scrolled back a few posts, but didn't see that one) ... but in any case, its an interesting line of thought.

I got to thinking about that one particular point "will require such a radical change in lifestyle that it is virtually incomprehensible" ... and I was reminded of a grade school project I had as a kid. It was to interview an elderly relative about their life ... I interviewed my grandmother. And when I think about how vastly different the world was from when my grandparents were kids to when I was the same age, the changes in lifestyle were incomprehensible.

One of her earliest memories was seeing soldiers returning from WWI. My grandparents grew up (lets round it off to their youth & teen years, being in the 1920's & 30's) in the UK. Houses didn't have central heating, and what heat they had was coal. Most homes didn't have much in the way of indoor plumbing. Music was listened to on a gramophone. Aviation was in its infancy. No telephone, but the post man delivered upwards of 3 or 4 times a day. Cars were rare.

In their lifetimes, communications went from the post, to telephone, to faxes & email. Air travel was born and progressed up to jumbo jets and the Concord. Space travel came into existence. Cooking went from a coal fire to a microwave. Music went from the gramophone to records to reel-to-reel, then 8 track, cassettes, CDs and eventually digital (MP3s, etc).

Talk about incomprehensible, eh?

Compare life in 1930 vs 1970 or 75. You don't think we have the technological ability to shift our way of life to hit a target 40 years away? That's not what history teaches.

[iflyforpie]

That was me that was quoted Brewguy.

And yes, we've seen some enormous changes over the last 70 years. But how many of those were planned? They say that necessity is the mother of invention and many of the technological triumphs we have seen were the result of simply that. Space travel? V2 rockets designed to save Germany's ass in WWII led to nuclear tipped ICBMs with inertial guidance to computer guided moon shots on the largest rockets ever seen. Same with jet travel, born in WWII.

But look at our energy consumption during those years of progress. Even as machines get more efficient, it only slightly mitigates our ever increasing desire for more energy.

Incomprehensible means not going forwards but backwards. If we want to shut down that coal-burning power plant, we need to unplug our houses. If we want to stop using gasoline, we need to stop using our cars. How many here would give up aviation (for many our livelihood) to stop GHGs?

Sure there are alternative energy sources. Nuclear, solar, wind, tidal. But none of these are as convenient and readily available as good ol' fossil fuels. My employer lives off the grid using solar power. But he has to burn wood and diesel to heat his home and keep the batteries up, in addition to being fanatical with turning things off, doing things in the right order, and lighting his house exclusively with LEDs. I am sure that his GHG emissions exceed mine plugged into the grid.

[BoostedNihilist]

Unscientific?

If you insulate something and add heat will it get warmer than without insulation? Nothing scary or unscientific about that, it's just common knowledge applied to this situation that everybody including you should know.

In simplest terms you are right, but putting a few squares of insulation in your house is not going to make an impact on your heating bill. Also, how much insulation is too much? Can you tell me this? Can you even tell me how much insulation is enough? If it is as simple as you make it out to be, this should be simple for you. All you are doing is pointing out a correlation and calling it causation.. not scientific.

The proof you seem to need would mean we've already gone too far. I personally don't care to go that far just to convince you since people around the world are already convinced. I don't find it difficult to make the correlation between increase MMGHG's and increased warmth. I also don't need to actually turn on a stove to know what the result will be there either. Increase GHG's and you will increase the temperature. Ice is disappearing proving that it is getting warmer.

Not at all. the problem is, you cannot tell me how far too far even is.. are we close to too far? or are we far enough away from too far that any action we might take is irrelevant.. this is the crux.. you cannot tell us where we even are today, short of telling us our temperature is rising and this correlates with rise in co2 emissions you have nothing.. no proof only fear tactics and 'before we go too far' arguments.. You don't need to turn the stove on to know that it will get hot, but I can at least tell you why, the principles of electromotive force and current meeting resistance and creating heat are provable and repeatable. We can create the criteria and model this time and time again.. has this been done with mmgw? No, it has not.. maybe on a computer with some cooked algorithms but not modeled in a physical sense. Again, this would provide PROOF and in the absence of such rudimentary scientific procedure (testing, vetting, and repeating of the hypothesis) I cannot see the correlation as anything other than simply coincidental. Of course, you can simplify away the intricacies but then you end up with a flawed premise.. which is what you are arguing here.

Hopefully you will never get your proof.

In this statement you admit you have no proof however, You know what, you're right, because that would make me right, and you wrong.

[mcrit]

Big aircraft manufacturers build complex airplanes using complex terms and complex procedures, but at the end of the day the principles in operating the big airplanes is no different than operating little ones. Only the scale is different. Same with climate.

No.

[2R]

Looks like no Nuclear treaty to be signed this week either.Strange that they would be discussing weapons during the time of such an important weather conference eh?
If you think that the entire security council is in Copenhagen to discuss the weather ,in the same week as Iran is testing its long range weapons go back to the weather chanel.In the same week when all the Nuclear treaty guys are meeting.

On second thoughts maybe it is just nicer to talk aboot the weather rather than who is next on the list to get approval from the security council for special high intensity treatment

[trampbike]

I take the reams of information given out by the scientists and try to frame it in references that I can understand. Maybe I'm simple, but to me this is a simple concept really. I learned to do that flying airplanes actually. Big aircraft manufacturers build complex airplanes using complex terms and complex procedures, but at the end of the day the principles in operating the big airplanes is no different than operating little ones. Only the scale is different. Same with climate.

This is a logical fallacy that consists of a false analogy and the wrong assumption that what is true for parts of a whole is also true for the said whole. Unless it is very well justified, this way of building an argument is a bad one.

@Brewguy: Awesome post!

[2R]

I take the reams of information given out by the scientists and try to frame it in references that I can understand. Maybe I'm simple, but to me this is a simple concept really. I learned to do that flying airplanes actually. Big aircraft manufacturers build complex airplanes using complex terms and complex procedures, but at the end of the day the principles in operating the big airplanes is no different than operating little ones. Only the scale is different. Same with climate.

This is a logical fallacy that consists of a false analogy and the wrong assumption that what is true for parts of a whole is also true for the said whole. Unless it is very well justified, this way of building an argument is a bad one.

@Brewguy: Awesome post!

Technically the fallacy would be called a "Bogus dilemma" argument.
Made more bogus by the bogus science ,lies and fearmongering by the bedwetters.Although some might argue that the persistant rantings of how right they are and how wrong the skeptics are.Although we could make the case for a description of argumentum ad nauseam.If we wanted to type a rebuttal everytime some bedwetter retypes Gores fears.