Correct.
However, you cannot have causation without correlation, and in this case correlation exists across many independent data sets AND a proven, solidly founded causal mechanism exists.
Why should we fear climate change?
- Thread starter Blindman
- Start date
Correct.
However, you cannot have causation without correlation, and in this case correlation exists across many independent data sets AND a proven, solidly founded causal mechanism exists.
So when common sense and sound judgment on serious issues has been made to look like a lie by media propaganda, that is a good thing?engineer said:
Correlation plus mechanism plus verified prediction plus superior explanatory power is worth considering as a "cause", though. Don't you think?engineer said:
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
Some months back we had to write a proposal to study climate change. The proposal was presented to a goup of research management types who are not real scientists. If accepted, the proposal would guarantee jobs for the next couple of years.
In it we reproduced the pretty pictures of temperature data vs co2, similar to the one Al Gore showed.
We told them, clearly, the cause of temperature rise is due to co2. Therefore, we need to study the effects of co2 --> temperature rise --> effect on living environment.
The management were pleased. I don't mean to sound mean, but those guys are morons. They agreed with us simply because we are telling them what they already "know".
Later, during a break, one of our scientists asked one of the young management types what he thought of the fact temperature records show co2 lagging behind temperature.
The bombshell was he never heard of it before. He said this was the first he heard of it.
Later on after the meeting, we were sitting around having coffee making fun of the management morons. We agreed these are people who don't know anything, yet make the decisions and control the money.
A few weeks later, they approved our proposal. Except they wanted us to focus on more specific issues, like instead of studying the impact of living conditions in general, we should study the impact in a specific city.
A WIN for us.
In it we reproduced the pretty pictures of temperature data vs co2, similar to the one Al Gore showed.
We told them, clearly, the cause of temperature rise is due to co2. Therefore, we need to study the effects of co2 --> temperature rise --> effect on living environment.
The management were pleased. I don't mean to sound mean, but those guys are morons. They agreed with us simply because we are telling them what they already "know".
Later, during a break, one of our scientists asked one of the young management types what he thought of the fact temperature records show co2 lagging behind temperature.
The bombshell was he never heard of it before. He said this was the first he heard of it.
Later on after the meeting, we were sitting around having coffee making fun of the management morons. We agreed these are people who don't know anything, yet make the decisions and control the money.
A few weeks later, they approved our proposal. Except they wanted us to focus on more specific issues, like instead of studying the impact of living conditions in general, we should study the impact in a specific city.
A WIN for us.
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
No these are not separate issues. Countries have finite resources. If you spend $X on fighting climate change you loose $X in studying and implementing preparatory measures.
Too much attention and resources is already given to fighting global warming. Look at Maldives. Their heads of state got so worked up they are convinced they will drown in rising sea levels.
"Whatever the outcome, it looks bad for us." This was what they said with regards to the failing Copenhagen talks.
They even went so far as to waste money organizing a state meeting underwater with full scuba gear. Sort of as a publicity stunt.
See, they are so bent on the idea fighting climate change is the solution to their problem, they neglect other cheaper, more feasible solutions.
Such as coastal landscaping and flood control. Studies have shown these methods usually take up on the order of 1% of gdp or less, yet preserve over 90% of land area. Yet these are options rarely heard about, considered, or debated.
But don't get me wrong. World governments are not stupid. If sea levels rise, they will eventually get round to these alternative solutions, but no one will ever admit these alternatives should be considered right from the start.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
They aren't morons, they just never read or heard of the science behind it, and it seems you didn't bother to explain it, either. Nice job.Some months back we had to write a proposal to study climate change. The proposal was presented to a goup of research management types who are not real scientists. If accepted, the proposal would guarantee jobs for the next couple of years.
In it we reproduced the pretty pictures of temperature data vs co2, similar to the one Al Gore showed.
We told them, clearly, the cause of temperature rise is due to co2. Therefore, we need to study the effects of co2 --> temperature rise --> effect on living environment.
The management were pleased. I don't mean to sound mean, but those guys are morons. They agreed with us simply because we are telling them what they already "know".
Later, during a break, one of our scientists asked one of the young management types what he thought of the fact temperature records show co2 lagging behind temperature.
The bombshell was he never heard of it before. He said this was the first he heard of it.
Later on after the meeting, we were sitting around having coffee making fun of the management morons. We agreed these are people who don't know anything, yet make the decisions and control the money.
A few weeks later, they approved our proposal. Except they wanted us to focus on more specific issues, like instead of studying the impact of living conditions in general, we should study the impact in a specific city.
A WIN for us.
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
Yes, i agree we handled it quite well. We did get approval for the proposal, didn't we? And all we did was reinforce their common misconception of the facts.
Good soil has built up where there was warm weather and rain. Places that had rain may lose their rain and places that did not ave rain may get rain. The places with the good soil may become too dry. I sort of agree with you. Bad farming practices already made the good soil wash away and blow away so good soil is replaced by fertilizer which could be made and brought anywhere by the power of burning still yet more fossil fuels.
Modern man will be no more willing to give up their use of combustion than the Easter Islanders were willing to give up statue making so we should concentrate on global warming mitigation rather than stopping global warming.
It seems that we can not yet model where the rains will fall with global warming. A few degrees warmer may shift the rains to some new locations and then as global warming continues to get still yet warmer the rain locations may shift again to a third set of locations.
Will the rich nations do anything for Bangladesh or will poor India be forced to accept 50 million Bangladeshi refugees without any significant help from the rest of the world?
Will the USA invade Canada if Canadian crop land improves while American crop land deteriorates? Will China invade Russia to take Siberia. Already the war in Darfur is in large part a global warming caused war. There will be a lot of these wars as people scramble to adjust to the changing rains.
New Orleans/Katrina offers little hope that Florida will be successfully protected from rising oceans. The US government is just too corrupt and incompetent to handle the situation. Other nations governments and the UN are not any better than the US government. The world's poor will just have too die because nobody will help them. Siberian and Canadian land may improve but how are Darfuris supposed to get there? No big deal though biggest this population growth was not sustainable anyway. If global warming does not kill the poor population growth would have lead to the same sort of crisis on a larger scale before long anyway.
It would be nice if the worlds people could work together to end misery and create Utopia and our technology is advanced enough to create utopia but our politics and economics and lack of emotional sophistication are far too crude to allow us to use our technology to create Utopia.
And your own.arch said:
Your conception of the issue as a political one mostly, governed in its urgency and response by political forces without reference to judgments of physical reality, has been reinforced by your successful con job.
You are of course fooling yourself, in that manner. The foolish people you have conned can blame you - you have no such out.
btw: Who is more deluded in that situation: the person who has never heard of the history of CO2 increases initially
Last edited:
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
I'm now a conman? A very serious allegation.
But i'll let you explain, in your own words. In what way did I con those people? Did i tell these people any untruths? If so, what?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
When resources become tight, people split along ethnic lines.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Did the left wing keep the rain from falling? They are more powerful than I thought!
You convinced some naive people that you believed something you did not believe, and were therefore a worthy recipient of moneys intended for those who did believe as you pretended.arch said:
In the course of that, you were pretending to an analytical competence you did not necessarily possess, of which that belief was taken (rightly or wrongly) as an indication.
Now you may in fact be competent in the manner desired, and your misrepresentation of yourself and the relevant issues was what the Jesuits call a "holy lie" - a lie told to communicate the truth. Or you may in fact be incompetent in fashion of many "denialists", unable to perceive even basic flaws or incoherencies in your objections to this global warming stuff. No way for those money pockets to tell.
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
Hold on, lets be clear where you are coming from.
Do you think we are competent in analysing the opinions and facts in literature related to climate change/global warming? Yes or no.
If you think we are incompetent, that means you think we made a mistake in our analysis of the facts/opinions in literature related to climate change/global warming. Tell me what that mistake is.
Ihae no idea whether you are competent or not. (Your retailing of the "CO2 lags warming" irrelevancy and rightwing talking point argues against competence, but various motives are possible). I agreed with you that you were misrepresenting your opinions and evaluations, for the purpose of getting a contract.arch said:
Arch_Rival
Registered Senior Member
Very good, first you insinuate we were trying to pretend to be competent when we are not.
And now, when pointedly asked to clarify, you are suddenly no longer sure if we are really competent.
ho ho ho. Lets go further. Why do you think my statement of co2 lagging warming argues against competence? How does that tie in to this earlier statement you made?
Why do you suggest we, in making the statement about co2 lagging warming, are deluded?
btw, i think you made a mistake in the underlined portion. If not, please clarify.
And now, when pointedly asked to clarify, you are suddenly no longer sure if we are really competent.
ho ho ho. Lets go further. Why do you think my statement of co2 lagging warming argues against competence? How does that tie in to this earlier statement you made?
Why do you suggest we, in making the statement about co2 lagging warming, are deluded?
btw, i think you made a mistake in the underlined portion. If not, please clarify.
Yep. Mental glitch in the typing. Fixed.arch said:
Initially, I had no opinion about your competence.arch said:
You are exhibiting some symptoms of incomprehension, yes. Not definitive.arch said:
Not necessarily.arch said:
In the context of the validity of the fears about CO2 boosting, the choice is misunderstanding or misrepresentation. If you understand the situation, you know why CO2 lagging warming in the past doesn't mean much. In that case, why did you retail that kind of Fox News style talking point to anyone?