If you deny man-made global warming...

[Tubbsalot]

I remember a quote somewhere saying "there is no facts just popular opinion". This may or may not be relevant in this case but just goes to show that not everything can be taken at face value.

That doesn't show anything.

If you try to present a figurative statement as proof of your position again, I am going to shake my head slowly and wearily.

Define "correct". As you have already pointed out, you haven't defined what's right and wrong. So telling someone about which opinion is correct and which isn't is arbitrary, seeing as different people have different views of what they think is correct.

99% of relevant scientists agree that this is the case.

If that's not sufficient for you, you're free to go off and frolic with the homeopaths and flat-worlders and immunisation=autism loons, because you're refusing to accept what is an obvious truth to anyone who knows their shit.

This is different. What is considered established fact may change in the future. What can be considered as the correct opinion today may not be so in twenty or a hundred years time.

If five-sigma certainty isn't enough for you, then again, go frolic with the relevantly insulting groups mentioned above, because you're refusing to accept what is an obvious truth to anyone who knows their shit.

And again, since when did you have the power to determine who is correct and who isn't? As I have already pointed out.

I specifically said I don't have the power to do that.

But I am not part of the same group. You wouldn't appreciate me stereotyping you with the same group that advocates going back to the Stone Ages because both groups of people happen to believe in AGW now would you? You wouldn't like being labelled as such?

That depends on whether the two groups are functionally identical. There are many differences between you and those who reject CC outright, but none are especially relevant now, that I can see.

In any case, saying that you were functionally part of the same group was just an offhand response giving a possible reason FS might have been treating you the same as deniers. I'm not hugely interested in contesting the point.

[Tubbsalot]

This thread isn't about whether or not climate change exists and that isn't what I asked, I asked people's opinions on human involvement in climate change.

Now, I'd like you to trawl through this list and see how many nations are at conscensus on human involvement. Let's say a conscensus is 80% agreement.

Of those countries listed, these are the ones I'd class as 'developed':
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States.

And of those countries, here are the percentages in each who think CC is a threat:
75, 54, 68, 74, 39, 40, 39, 75, 60, 82, 54, 75, 33, 60, 62, 76, 80, 75, 57, 43, 54, 39, 59, 80, 69, 56, 70, 66, 69, 63.

The median score is 62.5, the percentage of countries with a score less than 75 is 73%. The percentage of countries with greater perception of CC as a threat than the US
is 47%.

So it turns out that the US is pretty average in this sense, and is merely especially obvious due to its size and influence. On the other hand, it turns out Australia is pretty high up in comparison to everyone else.

I didn't even care about this.

You should have a look at this before you make incorrect statements. Coal is very cheap including external costs.

I didn't say reduce emissions across the board, I said some level of compliance. Choosing geothermal, hydro or some other renewable over coal would be one such level of compliance, would it not? I don't remember asking undeveloped countries to be punished under harsher laws than developed countries so I don't know why you would insinuate that I did.

FS has already addressed the coal comment, and as for the rest of the quote, I don't see how this is meant to convince developing countries to accept equally stringent restrictions as developed countries.

[Sociobiology]

I remember a quote somewhere saying "there is no facts just popular opinion". This may or may not be relevant in this case but just goes to show that not everything can be taken at face value.

show me a cultural realativist at 20,000 feet and I will show you a hypocrite.

This is different. What is considered established fact may change in the future. What can be considered as the correct opinion today may not be so in twenty or a hundred years time.

that is the dumbest argument I have heard in a long time.
It is identical to arguing for using blood letting and leeches to treat anemia, because you never know science could be wrong.

[Xsyne]

Does man make pollution, yes. Does man squander resources, yes.
Does this effect a world, that changes drastically over eons? Perhaps, but in my view, unlikely.

UMAD?

(Image)

Given that fucking one-celled organisms drastically changed the entire makeup of the Earth's atmosphere, likely causing a mass extinction in the process, I think humans can do the same sort of thing only on a smaller scale.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Does man make pollution, yes. Does man squander resources, yes.
Does this effect a world, that changes drastically over eons? Perhaps, but in my view, unlikely.

UMAD?

(Image)

Given that fucking one-celled organisms drastically changed the entire makeup of the Earth's atmosphere, likely causing a mass extinction in the process, I think humans can do the same sort of thing only on a smaller scale.

Never thought of this point myself. Good one.

[Person012345]

The IPCC is an organisation who's very existance depends on climate change of some flavour being real (not necessarily anthroprogenic).

Jesus, dude, give it a rest.

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organiz ... 0-jUnlpmHU

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

leading international body for the assessment of climate change

established by the United Nations Environment Programmee (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts

If climate change did not exist in any form, the IPCC would be out of a job. If you had bothered to read my post however, you would have seen that I wasn't specifically arguing against it being used in this case - merely that it does have an agenda relating to climate change. If your existance depends on the existance of something, you aren't going to be that open to suggestions that it doesn't exist.

The IPCC reports are pretty much the epitome of scientific rigour, which is why you've been told it's perfectly good as a source in and of itself.

Oh, I've been told have I, well that's ok then, I believe everything I'm told, especially on the internet.

If you were given the original sources (which have already been vetted by the IPCC scientists, and which are readily available to you if you'd just bother looking), would you even understand what they said?

Yes. Any bits I don't understand I can ask someone here about, I'm sure.

Do you have any scientific background whatsoever? You can't just pick up and read that stuff, it's presented quite technically.

Yes, I can. This is precisely why I have been concentrating on a specific graph in this case. True, if you just dumped a shitload of random data on me, I wouldn't know where to begin, which is the entire reason I was asking about a specific graph, and the specific data relating to the specific graph. I already have their "interpretation" with which to give context to the numbers if I need that.

I don't mean to denigrate you, it's just that you're asking people to go through a ludicrous list of subsources rather than accepting the very strong source already provided. If you won't even understand what those subsources say, you've just wasted a lot of someone's time.

You're defending something that doesn't need defending and what's more you're not doing a very good job. The sources I asked for I believe have been provided (I didn't look at everything in detail yet, which is why I haven't posted more on the subject yet, but at a glance it appears to be what I wanted), yet you feel the need to defend why I can't be provided with sources. And to do that, you appear to be arguing that it would be a bother to provide them. Well, I'm sorry if it's bothersome, but "can't be bothered to waste my time because you wouldn't understand" is not, has never been and never will be a valid reason to decline to provide sources.

As I say, I believe the sources have been provided, and I will take a look at them in more detail when I have some spare time.

Btw, if I don't understand them properly and can't because they're too complicated, I will concede the point. Whilst I may not be able to positively verify the IPCC graph using the figures, nor would I be able to disprove the IPCC graph. So as long as the numbers come from a solid source, and haven't been obviously wilfully misinterpreted (which I wouldn't be able to claim if I couldn't understand them), then I will accept it.

[Free Soviets]

If climate change did not exist in any form, the IPCC would be out of a job.

none of the scientists participating in the IPCC process are paid. well, other than their normal salaries at their home institutions.

[Xsyne]

If climate change did not exist in any form, the IPCC would be out of a job. If you had bothered to read my post however, you would have seen that I wasn't specifically arguing against it being used in this case - merely that it does have an agenda relating to climate change. If your existance depends on the existance of something, you aren't going to be that open to suggestions that it doesn't exist.

Oh, hey, haven't had a creationist on here in a while.

[Person012345]

If climate change did not exist in any form, the IPCC would be out of a job. If you had bothered to read my post however, you would have seen that I wasn't specifically arguing against it being used in this case - merely that it does have an agenda relating to climate change. If your existance depends on the existance of something, you aren't going to be that open to suggestions that it doesn't exist.

Oh, hey, haven't had a creationist on here in a while.

I thought NSG was crawling with them?

[Person012345]

If climate change did not exist in any form, the IPCC would be out of a job.

none of the scientists participating in the IPCC process are paid. well, other than their normal salaries at their home institutions.

So... what exactly is their budget for?

[Oyashima (Ancient)]

none of the scientists participating in the IPCC process are paid. well, other than their normal salaries at their home institutions.

So... what exactly is their budget for?

Conducting research, not paying their personal salaries. Nobody is getting rich off of climate change research.

And I have a question. Do you consider scientists who deny anthropomorphic climate change, at least some of whom are being paid by oil companies and right wing think tanks, to be biased?

[Person012345]

So... what exactly is their budget for?

Conducting research, not paying their personal salaries. Nobody is getting rich off of climate change research.

But the costs of research are generally salaries. Unless the IPCC is purchasing some fairly expensive equipment, which seems strange since I have (earlier in this thread) been told that the IPCC don't collect the data themselves, they just collate it.

And I have a question. Do you consider scientists who deny anthropomorphic climate change, at least some of whom are being paid by oil companies and right wing think tanks, to be biased?

Yes.

[Free Soviets]

none of the scientists participating in the IPCC process are paid. well, other than their normal salaries at their home institutions.

So... what exactly is their budget for?

conferences and meetings, publications, administration, outreach, proofreaders, some travel expense coverage... we are dealing with an organization coordinating hundreds of authors all over the world looking at thousands of articles and trying to distill that information into documents that are both current and useable by scientists and policy makers in order to inform government responses to a massive global issue, after all.

[Farnhamia]

So... what exactly is their budget for?

conferences and meetings, publications, administration, outreach, proofreaders, some travel expense coverage...

... solid-gold Cadillacs (take that, Mrs. Romney!)

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Clearly God intended for global warming to occur, and in order to properly serve His whims, we should pollute the atmosphere even more.

[Free Soviets]

conferences and meetings, publications, administration, outreach, proofreaders, some travel expense coverage...

... solid-gold Cadillacs (take that, Mrs. Romney!)

wind-powered, though

[Costa Fiero]

If you try to present a figurative statement as proof of your position again, I am going to shake my head slowly and wearily.

Do what you wish but that doesn't help your case one little bit.

If that's not sufficient for you, you're free to go off and frolic with the homeopaths and flat-worlders and immunisation=autism loons, because you're refusing to accept what is an obvious truth to anyone who knows their shit.

Again, stereotyping isn't helping.

If five-sigma certainty isn't enough for you, then again, go frolic with the relevantly insulting groups mentioned above, because you're refusing to accept what is an obvious truth to anyone who knows their shit.

Why don't you go frolic with those who advocate population reductions, eco-terrorism and living in the Stone Ages? After all, you seem to like stereotyping people so clearly this isn't an issue for you.

That depends on whether the two groups are functionally identical. There are many differences between you and those who reject CC outright, but none are especially relevant now, that I can see.

In any case, saying that you were functionally part of the same group was just an offhand response giving a possible reason FS might have been treating you the same as deniers. I'm not hugely interested in contesting the point.

Considering I don't wish to be lumped with people who think that it's a liberal cospiracy, I want to contest the point. The fact that I have expressed many times that I don't outright deny global warming is enough of a difference for you people to see.

However, if stereotyping is all you people wish to do, then fine. That's your perogative.

[Albion and Cambria]

I don't deny it.
I simply don't care.

Now, if your forcing me to do something about Global Warming/help you do something/participate in any way, then I will fight it.

[Free Soviets]

I don't deny it.
I simply don't care.

Now, if your forcing me to do something about Global Warming/help you do something/participate in any way, then I will fight it.

every day, i have more and more sympathy for robespierre.

[Fartsniffage]

I don't deny it.
I simply don't care.

Now, if your forcing me to do something about Global Warming/help you do something/participate in any way, then I will fight it.

Arrogance has it's place.

The future of mankind is not it.

[Awesomeland]

It seems pretty obvious that humans are responsible for the mess that the planet is currently in. The amount of damage humans have caused to the planet is visible from space. You can't destroy this much stuff without having SOME kind of effect.

Of course, suppose we stopped emitting all this carbon overnight. What would happen THEN? This has been going on for some time. Things have gotten USED to this. If all the stuff that has gotten used to this carbon suddenly stopped receiving it, they would rapidly eat all of it and we'd be looking at an alternate problem: A new ice age.

I, am all for this. There's no way to fix too hot, but if things are too cold, you just set something on fire.

[Fartsniffage]

It seems pretty obvious that humans are responsible for the mess that the planet is currently in. The amount of damage humans have caused to the planet is visible from space. You can't destroy this much stuff without having SOME kind of effect.

Of course, suppose we stopped emitting all this carbon overnight. What would happen THEN? This has been going on for some time. Things have gotten USED to this. If all the stuff that has gotten used to this carbon suddenly stopped receiving it, they would rapidly eat all of it and we'd be looking at an alternate problem: A new ice age.

I, am all for this. There's no way to fix too hot, but if things are too cold, you just set something on fire.

What things?

[Person012345]

I don't deny it.
I simply don't care.

Now, if your forcing me to do something about Global Warming/help you do something/participate in any way, then I will fight it.

How about if we ask you to try and use less of earth's limited natural resources that produce pollution (even if you don't believe global warming, it still produces bad pollution for most of it's uses)?

[Sociobiology]

none of the scientists participating in the IPCC process are paid. well, other than their normal salaries at their home institutions.

So... what exactly is their budget for?

what budget?, the IPCC gets just enough money to cover its traveling expenses and printing up reports.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc3.pdf

[Mavorpen]

Of course, suppose we stopped emitting all this carbon overnight. What would happen THEN? This has been going on for some time. Things have gotten USED to this. If all the stuff that has gotten used to this carbon suddenly stopped receiving it, they would rapidly eat all of it and we'd be looking at an alternate problem: A new ice age.

Uh....? What are these "things" that have gotten used to it? Are you implying that in the past 50 years animals have evolved completely new bodies to survive in really warm weather, without their usual food, etc? Please tell me you are joking. What things are "eating" the carbon? You do realize that even if these magical beings did "eat" all of the carbon, their populations would drop so low that the levels of CO2 would rise again to levels before humans added to it with fossil fuels.

I, am all for this. There's no way to fix too hot, but if things are too cold, you just set something on fire.

This doesn't even make any sense.