22 Dec 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainDid you read my post? The data I just quoted concluded that anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate. How is that a baseless claim? These claims are being made on solid evidence (unlike your data). You need to either conclude that the data is wrong, or you are wrong. It can't be both, and I am not contradicting myself.
"Current data shows the human contribution is significant, and can be mitigated using straightfoward policy actions."
What is your definition of significant? That is why "primary cause" is a better term. If someone concluded anthropogenic causes were about 5% one person might call that significant, but I would not. A poll was done using the term "sign ...[text shortened]... e whole thing so you do not keep asking me for data that may still be unavailable to the public.
Clearly the data is out there. Singer argues that scientists are being manipulated by their funding sources and journal editors to reach those conclusions. It's an unequivocally anti-science message. In my opinion, I don't believe the argument is genuine or based on solid factual information.
I conceded earlier that the anthropogenic effect varies depending on the system in question and the source of the effect (as any reasonable person would expect). And, again, most scientists are trying to discover the precise mechanisms rather than fit their findings into broad categories. Anthropogenic is relatively easy to tease out from the data, but obviously can involve multiple important factors. But calling "nature" the primary factor is entirely pointless from a scientific standpoint, sort of like saying DNA causes cancer. It's a reasonable start, but what is the mechanism?
That said, I do appreciate your argument that "significant" and "actionable" are distinct. As you can imagine, studies proving the effectiveness of non-existent policy measures are difficult to control for at the global level. By definition they are based on very unreliable forecasts of what can be achieved in the future at reasonable costs. It's a big problem that economists smarter than myself have tried to tackle.
Of course I can suggest policy actions, although I'm not very proficient at sifting through economic data. I have posted some already. For example, land use policies! There is a series of good studies on how simple changes to agricultural practices can mitigate carbon emssions (which involves shifting subsidies - i.e. cost neutral). Some economists suggest a global R&D fund that invests in low-cost sustainable energy, increasing efficiency, and reducing emissions. Companies who don't meet reasonable standards pay into this fund (rather than paying a government). This would be an economic driver, not a burden, that would innovate for a better future. In my opinion, investing in advanced technologies that minimize emissions and maximize efficiency is an extremely important path for the future.
Again, I highly recommend doing a little research outside the bubble, to decide for yourself that this isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of lots of smart people. Conservative economists argue for global climate policies as a necessary step towards reducing the impact that rising sea levels and temps will have on the world's economy. Not doing anything is going to be really, really expensive.
Here's some reading to start: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa003.pdf
27 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyToo many ifs. Star over and keep it concise and reasonable.
The question was;
"How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?"
Exactly which part/parts of that is "unintelligible" and why? Everyone else here understands it just fine and obviously you are just making excuses not to answer it....and we all know why.
27 Dec 16
Originally posted by wildgrass"Did you read my post? The data I just quoted concluded that anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate. How is that a baseless claim? These claims are being made on solid evidence (unlike your data). You need to either conclude that the data is wrong, or you are wrong. It can't be both, and I am not contradicting myself."
Did you read my post? The data I just quoted concluded that anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate. How is that a baseless claim? These claims are being made on solid evidence (unlike your data). You need to either conclude that the data is wrong, or you are wrong. It can't be both, and I am not contradicting mysel ...[text shortened]... really expensive.
Here's some reading to start: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa003.pdf
Yeah, I read it and it does not say anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate. You said that, not the excerpt of your link. Why didn't you provide the link you got that from when you posted the excerpt?
I think you are either just making stuff up or you accept conclusions from those that do not know any of the things they claim are true at all. If you are so convinced that 69% figure is true why no explanation for that conclusion?
"Conservative economists argue for global climate policies as a necessary step towards reducing the impact that rising sea levels and temps will have on the world's economy. Not doing anything is going to be really, really expensive."
You do not know that at all. That is mere baseless theory most likely pulled out of some person's butt hole in an effort to pretend to be certain about uncertainty. Sea levels have a trend. An estimate based on the trend so far might be fairly accurate, but an estimate of a sharp increase that is not based on the trend is a "prediction".
You do know that predictions are met with a great deal of skepticism for very good reason, right?
27 Dec 16
Originally posted by Metal Brain"Yeah, I read it and it does not say anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate."
"Did you read my post? The data I just quoted concluded that anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate. How is that a baseless claim? These claims are being made on solid evidence (unlike your data). You need to either conclude that the data is wrong, or you are wrong. It can't be both, and I am not contradicting myself." ...[text shortened]... ou do know that predictions are met with a great deal of skepticism for very good reason, right?
Jeez. Yes it does! I cited the research article in the post, and directly quoted the article's result that "The anthropogenic fraction of global specific glacier mass loss rates increased from –6 ± 35% during the period 1851 to 1870 to 69 ± 24% during the period 1991 to 2010." I didn't need to post the web URL, since you pasted the link in your post (which I was replying to), and I had put it in an earlier post of mine. I was responding to your post requesting more information from that specific article.
I've lost track of what you are arguing. Do you think the science on global warming is wrong? Do you think that the public is being misled as to what the data actually says? Or do you think, as Singer does, that mankind should not care about anthropogenic global warming?
27 Dec 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainAllow me to simplify:
Too many ifs. Star over and keep it concise and reasonable.
Question #1: What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?
Question #2: With the evidence profferred in question 1, what should we do?
28 Dec 16
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainIn other words, you repeatedly refuse to answer the question or even half-answer any small part of it because you know you are wrong. The question is obviously extremely easy to understand and is perfectly concise and reasonable to anyone here who reads it so playing completely stupid pretending to not comprehend won't work with us. Please stop insulting our intelligence. Everyone else here understands the question just fine.
Too many ifs. ....
The question was;
"How would you expect the data or observations to be different from what they are if there is currently man made global warming and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?"
29 Dec 16
Originally posted by wildgrassIf it does you didn't put it in quotations so it looks like you said it and not the link. Post the link again with the excerpt so I know it is not just your interpretation. You act as if I can read your mind and do not need all of the information.
"Yeah, I read it and it does not say anthropogenic causes contributed to 69% of current glacial mass loss rate."
Jeez. Yes it does! I cited the research article in the post, and directly quoted the article's result that "The anthropogenic fraction of global specific glacier mass loss rates increased from –6 ± 35% during the period 1851 to 1870 to 69 ± 2 ...[text shortened]... r do you think, as Singer does, that mankind should not care about anthropogenic global warming?
Even if the link says it does not make it true. Lots of articles say stuff that cannot possibly be proven and I think that is the case with yours. BTW, is the article peer reviewed?
Once again, post the link along with the excerpt of the article that is relevant to your claim. The fact that you ignored my simple request makes me think you are trying to intentionally waste my time using stall tactics. Try to debate fairly. I have every right to scrutinize an article, it's source of info and anything that does not make logical sense. From my experience people that debate intensely and do not do well at it will resort to unfair tactics. For example, you once replied to an old post of mine instead of the most recent one to avoid answering my very good questions including your sources of information. Do not think I was fooled by that. Go back and answer my questions without your usual tactics of digression!
29 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyFirst of all there is no evidence that we can do anything about global warming so that part is irrelevant. First you have to prove Man is the primary cause and you have not done that. Asking me what data should be different is stupid since all data is different and you know that. It is not nearly as warm as the Pliocene Epoch. This proves that global warming alarmists greatly overestimated how much CO2 warms the climate. You keep ignoring that as if it is irrelevant but it is not at all. Get it through your thick skull. many of the theories alarmists base their claims on are flat out false, yet you expect me to answer stupid questions that are not worth answering. Do you understand how stupid your question is now???????
In other words, you repeatedly refuse to answer the question or even half-answer any small part of it because you know you are wrong. The question is obviously extremely easy to understand and is perfectly concise and reasonable to anyone here who reads it so playing completely stupid pretending to not comprehend won't work with us. Please stop insulting our in ...[text shortened]... and man is the the primary cause and the warming is such that we should do something about it?"
29 Dec 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainI would love a fair debate. But, in my post, the data from a peer-reviewed article you asked for was cited in quotations, and the link to the article was in the quoted post. I've re-read my post and I don't know what more I needed to do.
If it does you didn't put it in quotations so it looks like you said it and not the link. Post the link again with the excerpt so I know it is not just your interpretation. You act as if I can read your mind and do not need all of the information.
Go back and answer my questions without your usual tactics of digression!
(It's not like the data was buried in the article text either. The 69% figure was right in the abstract. For the third time, the link is here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/919. A full PDF version of the article can be found here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/345/6199/919.full.pdf)
Now you want me to go back and re-read each of your posts and answer each of your questions, while at the same time you aren't even reading my posts or addressing the key questions posed to you?
I will try again to go through my logic.
Undeniably, hundreds of scientific articles conclude that anthropogenic causes are significantly altering our climate. It is then fundamentally-important to ask the question, "What would this data look like if I was wrong?" Without answering that question, the conclusions are worthless, which is why statistics are so important.
You are continually asked the question by humy and refuse to answer it. Actually, from your posts it sounds like you haven't even thought about it. What data would convince you that your conclusions are wrong?
Originally posted by Metal Brainhave you got any evidence that we can NOT do anything about global warming? If we caused it, that indicates we can do something about it and that is thus evidence that we can do something about it
[b]First of all there is no evidence that we can do anything about global warming ..../b]
Originally posted by wildgrassnotice how metalBrain just refuses to give straight answers to such simple questions that a half-wit can understand and that would obviously expose him as be irrational and he obviously knows this thus this is obviously why he refuses. What is he going to do now? Just idiotically insult our intelligence again by shouting that your questions are "inconcise" or "unreasonable" or "too many ifs" as he says, even though there doesn't appear even to a half-wit to be many ifs there?
Allow me to simplify:
Question #1: What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?
Question #2: With the evidence profferred in question 1, what should we do?
30 Dec 16
Originally posted by humyYou aren't very good at communication. This is anyone's fault but yours.
notice how metalBrain just refuses to give straight answers to such simple questions that a half-wit can understand and that would obviously expose him as be irrational and he obviously knows this thus this is obviously why he refuses. What is he going to do now? Just idiotically insult our intelligence again by shouting that your questions are "inconcise" or "un ...[text shortened]... "too many ifs" as he says, even though there doesn't appear even to a half-wit to be many ifs there?
30 Dec 16
15 edits
Originally posted by apathistso what? My question was understood by all anyway, even by the lying MetalBrain.
You aren't very good at communication. This is anyone's fault but yours.
Do you understand wildgrass's two questions then?
reminder:
Question #1: What evidence would convince you that global warming was primarily anthropogenic?
Question #2: With the evidence profferred in question 1, what should we do?
Why do you think MetalBrain doesn't answer HIS two questions?
It is because you think he doesn't understand them because they are "inconcise" or "unreasonable" or "too many ifs", just like he says with my questions? Really?
Even MetalBrain understands them just fine and we all know why he doesn't give a straight answer.
30 Dec 16
11 edits
Originally posted by apathistIf what you mean by "worldview" is "belief", especially if it is such that it can sometimes be "irrational belief", I disagree; One should make oneself have the attitude to make it change as easily as possible with the evidence/deduction. I have often changed my belief of what I thought to be the case on coming to know some evidence/deduction that I hadn't known before and I think that is the right thing to do. If you don't believe me (that I have change my belief on the evidence), I will happily explain some specific examples of that on request although I have to warn you they make pretty boring reading.
Humy, changing one's worldview should not happen easily. .