Peak Oil & Climate Change (merged)

[dohboi]

Nicely put, and I might add, probably quite generous.

Cash's highest claim to scientific background is that he once took a course in calculus. Calculus is far from the pinnacle of scientific understanding, more of a bare minimum. And of course any idiot can take it and remain and idiot.

[rockdoc123]

AGW has been supported by every established scientific body in the world that has weighed in on it. Denialist claims have been supported by none of the same. The latter sounds more like a candidate for the title of religion, but I would not want to sully the name of the great and not-so-great religions by comparing them to the cynical sham denialists present us with.

herein lies the problem. Notwithstanding the issue that science is absolutely not about consciensus, when you start digging into these claims that such and such organization supports the theory of AGW what you find is invariably that is a political statement that is not at all endorsed by all of the people in that organization. The IPCC is a good example, reading the statment for policy makers you are led to believe that there are no questions and all the scientists who participated are in complete agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth there are a host of scientists who were chapter authors, editors and reviewers who regularily dispute that statements coming from the IPCC. I´ve read a number of the chapters in the last IPCC report that were of interest to me and it is very clear that there are a number of uncertainties that are not pointed out in the summary. Politics and science are poor bedmates and that is very true when it comes to climate science.
On a number of threads where it has been suggested that the conscensus is all that matters I´ve pointed out examples where a single scientist swimming upstream against ¨conventional wisdom¨has proven to be correct....the ¨consensus¨being incorrect. The story of Alfred Wegener and much later J Tuzo Wilson and the advent of plate tectonics is certainly my favorite but there are a bunch of other examples.
Having spent part of my early career in the academic realm I can state with confidence that reputation should always be ignored when weighing the credibility of a theory....it has very little to do with who or what group proposes a particular theory but rather what the theory entails, what hard tests it has been exposed to and whether or not it has stood up to the rigors of critical review.

[dohboi]

Come on, rock. You know that to the extent IPCC is political, it is so in the opposite direction than the one you imply. There was enormous governmental pressure to tone down the dire warnings in the last draft, and they partly succeeded.

I know I will never convince. rock, since he do not seem to be completely sincere in his postings here, regularly posting 'findings' that he must know by now (since he is clearly intelligent) that are long since discredited. But others show know that any political influence on the IPCC is and has been almost completely in the other direction, away from full understanding of the direst consequences of AGW.

[TempleOfDoom]

I can think of 2 effects of PO on world pollution in the long-term (till the switch-over to non-polluting energy sources happen, if at all)
1. As the fossil fuels run out, there would be less of it consumed & hence pollution (also GW) would reduce.
2. During the messy transition away from oil, the world would be forced to use other, more polluting fuels (coal -> wood ??) resulting in increased pollution.

Unclear which of these would dominate.

[rockdoc123]

You know that to the extent IPCC is political, it is so in the opposite direction than the one you imply. There was enormous governmental pressure to tone down the dire warnings in the last draft, and they partly succeeded.

that is absolute horsecrap....have you read the IPCC reports, well I have. They are literred with comments regarding the fact that there is little known about certain aspects of climate including aerosols and cosmic ray affects. The policy statement on the other hand glosses over all of these uncertainties and implies that everyone who participated in the various studies agrees with the policy statement. Nothing could be further from the truth with folks such as Pielke and McIntyre and a host of others who were either editors or contributors continuing to criticize the conclusison. For you to portray it in any other manner speaks directly to what I've said about willful ignorance and the comparison between religious and climate worship.

regularly posting 'findings' that he must know by now (since he is clearly intelligent) that are long since discredited.

Lets see some examples. Most of the time what you call "findings" are the conclusions made by authors in papers posted in journals for which peer review is the standard (links to which I post on various threads here quite regularily). If they have been discredited then the responsible means of demonstrating that would be to point us to acutal "discussion" which appeared in said journal and the requisite "reply". If you can't demonstrate how the theories proposed (which are not mine but those of authors who have been contributing to scientific journals for years or decades) then I suggest you retract this claim.

But others show know that any political influence on the IPCC is and has been almost completely in the other direction, away from full understanding of the direst consequences of AGW.

bollocks, this is an opinion or belief you have which is not substantiated at all. I can substantiate my claim easily enough..just read the actual submissions to the various chapters and then take a look at how that is portrayed in the policy statement. On one thread early last year I did post some of the findings from the early released chapters which pointed to considerable remaining uncertainties. None of these have been alluded to in statements from the IPPC.

[Cashmere]

You admit that you agree to the science. So why did you title this thread the way you did? Wouldn't it be more accurate to discuss the harm that is being done when GW departs science and becomes dogmatic religion? I think that is a valuable topic to pursue since this does great harm to the rational dialog required to get our society to move toward the necessary sacrifices required to reduce our carbon foot print on the planet. The naysayers and the religious GW zealots both muddy the waters.

It's very simple.

When I look around and 99% of the people I see on my side of the issue are idol worshipers who don't understand science, it makes me extremely uneasy.

Why?

Because, given their lack of understanding of the science, they become hysterical at any attempt to refute their religion.

That is, the zealots have crossed the Rubicon mentally and do not leave as a valid option the concept of retracting the belief.

That's it in a nutshell.

I can't stand being part of group that is so intellectually lowly so as to use the word "denier" for a theory that was proposed only recently, that is hardly supported beyond reasonable doubt, and that is based on science that is among the least predictable of all the hard sciences and has very limited long term data.

I suppose I prefer to look around at my group and see reason and logic . . .


With 911 I do.
With PO I do.
With GW I do not.

The risk is great.

If you believe that you are right beyond question or retreat, it opens you up to manipulation.

The earth is presently cooling. True statement.

When somebody stands up and counters that statement with, "DENIER!", I don't want to be standing next to that person.

On a separate note:
The reason I titled the thread as I did has nothing to do with the veracity of GW.

It only has to do with the ordering, in the minds of the masses, of priorities.

[dohboi]

So it looks like the best that can be said about cash is that he is phenomenally bad at phrasing what he intends to convey. I guess I'll share in this (probably generous) assessment by ibon till further evidence indicates otherwise.

Rock is of course devoted to his religion; that is why, Rove like, he jumps to quickly accuse others of his own folly first so when they point out that the shoe fits his foot better, it can look like mere tit for tat. I never said he wasn't clever.

Some other time I'll dig up the reams of reports of last minute arm twisting by the Bush administration and some other governments to tone down the full severity of the situation we face. Anyone can google around and find these for themselves.

[Cashmere]

So it looks like the best that can be said about cash is that he is phenomenally bad at phrasing what he intends to convey..

And Yao Ming is short and has awesome vertical.

I'll run you under a rock with words.

[Ibon]

I'll run you under a rock with words.

Well , at least your honest enough to reveal your priorities which is to win arguments. These threads are full of such noise. The irony is that it seems to be noise your also complaining about all those deniers.

Winning arguments doesn't interest me. Helping bridge polarities and helping people understand does.

Have you thought about how effective you are being in getting across your message.

You may have some good points to make here. But they are eclipsed by your petty egotism......

Oh well, this is really an intelligent discourse we are having here isn't it?

[Cashmere]

I'll run you under a rock with words.

Well , at least your honest enough to reveal your priorities which is to win arguments.

Come now. My comment was only in rejoinder to some knuckle dragger attempting to say my writing wasn't cogent.

Hardly my priority, but I'll take on any poster I've read in this forum in a speaking or writing contest, and I'll dismantle everybody except for Montequest, who would run with me for a bit in the writing event.

[Heineken]

Why do you feel the need to compete, Cashmere? This comes through in many of your posts. Perhaps you're aware of it, perhaps not.

I think Ibon gave you good advice. Sometimes the best advice is that which stings a bit.

[rdsaltpower]

found this climate story today... http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080820/ ... 02b49.html

[dissident]

As the article states we are in the La Nina regime so no big surprise. The El Nino cycle is irregular but around 5 to 7 years.

[Lore]

I call on everyone who wants to save western democracy to kill all global warming alarmists.

Sounds like the Mr_Hyde is coming out in you?

[mos6507]

I call on everyone who wants to save western democracy to kill all global warming alarmists.

I call on everyone who wants to save Peakoil.com to ignore Dr_Jekyll.

[Cashmere]

And just to make the point -

Try to find a GW story in the headlines over the next 12 months.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about GW when they're afraid their credit cards might not work tomorrow.

[Lore]

And just to make the point -

Try to find a GW story in the headlines over the next 12 months.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about GW when they're afraid their credit cards might not work tomorrow.

That doesn't make GW less important of a crisis. Human nature is about fixing the flat tire on the car today, even though next week the engine may blow up.

[mos6507]

Human nature is about fixing the flat tire on the car today, even though next week the engine may blow up.

Yikes, another great potential sig line!

[Cashmere]

And just to make the point -

Try to find a GW story in the headlines over the next 12 months.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about GW when they're afraid their credit cards might not work tomorrow.

That doesn't make GW less important of a crisis. Human nature is about fixing the flat tire on the car today, even though next week the engine may blow up.

We agree.

[Lore]

One time I snorted some amphetamine sulfate and took a bunch of morning glory seeds and got a spasm in my face that made me look like that.

Right track, wrong combination.