Page 16 of 18

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 7:50 pm
by jimbennett
AndyH wrote:
Let's try again, Jim, nothing personal. Why should I listen to Ridley - what is it about him, his background, the information he imparts, or his published science that I should add to my knowledge base? I base my opinion on the facts, not the other way around. Since I've learned the hard way that bad information is worse than no information, I would like to know why you think Mr. Ridley's message is important.

The number of comments or 'thumbs up' on the YouTube queue tells me absolutely nothing about the validity of the information.

Thank you!
The video wasn't for you. Some things exist outside your knowledge base. That's ok.

You are welcome!

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 8:05 pm
by Stoaty
jimbennett wrote:The video wasn't for you. Some things exist outside your knowledge base. That's ok.
Some things exist outside of the scientific knowledge base... but that doesn't mean they should be used to make important policy decisions affecting the lives and well-being of billions of people.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 9:17 pm
by jimbennett
Stoaty wrote:
jimbennett wrote:The video wasn't for you. Some things exist outside your knowledge base. That's ok.
Some things exist outside of the scientific knowledge base... but that doesn't mean they should be used to make important policy decisions affecting the lives and well-being of billions of people.
Billions? How are we going to change China's policies?

The knowledge base of science is not static, theory is subordinate to observation. Are you thinking of religion?

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 9:47 pm
by Stoaty
jimbennett wrote:Billions? How are we going to change China's policies?
We can't... but China could say the same thing about us. China has the advantage that it can make changes very quickly since commands come from the top (not saying I admire their system, but in this particular case when they get serious about it the changes can be made much more rapidly). The U.S., not so much.
The knowledge base of science is not static, theory is subordinate to observation.
Unfortunately, the observations so far have shown that predictions have been too conservative, i.e., warming and its effects have been occurring much more quickly than predicted. The knowledge base is not static, as studies (based on multiple lines of evidence, not just climate models) have shown more and more evidence of the seriousness of climate change.

For observational evidence see:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 10:53 pm
by jimbennett
Well that's the point, China won't change in a meaningful way because they want wealth, derived from fossil fuels. How do you think they can manufacture all those solar panels? Efforts need to be based on adapting to higher CO2 in the future, there really isn't a choice. It amazes me how antagonistic zealots become when it is pointed out that things have been getting better for the billions of the earth, despite generations of gloom and doom predictions--no food, the doomsday clock, peak oil, global warming, climate change, ocean acidification, catastrophic weather...there will always be false prophets, who in this day and age seem to like private jets and large residences. Everyone has an agenda, as the late Michael Crichton used to say.

Disclaimer--I'm not affiliated with big oil or coal. I do like clean air, however. Growing up my lungs used to hurt walking to school in weather like this. Air quality is better, even on hot days and I'm proud to drive an electric vehicle. I like my e-bikes too!

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 11:18 pm
by klapauzius
jimbennett wrote: It amazes me how antagonistic zealots become when it is pointed out that things have been getting better for the billions of the earth, despite generations of gloom and doom predictions--no food, the doomsday clock, peak oil, global warming, climate change, ocean acidification, catastrophic weather...there will always be false prophets, who in this day and age seem to like private jets and large residences. Everyone has an agenda, as the late Michael Crichton used to say.
I think the reasonable people in this debate wont question the advances made possible by cheap, fossil fuel. I would wholeheartedly agree that the coal- and oil age created incredible wealth for us (the industrialized western nations) and that it continues to do so. However, I find it also reasonable to point out now, especially that we have meaningful alternatives, that the CO2 party cannot go on forever and that it is time to switch gears. Because now the side effects (global warming) start to outweigh the desired effects (economic progress).

I wouldn't exactly see this as doom and gloom predictions, but as rational foresight.
What is annoying though are people who are telling us, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence, that there is no problem and therefore no need to change our ways.
And yes, some of them have an agenda, which is to protect the financial well being of a few at the expense of the many.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 6:37 am
by Stoaty
jimbennett wrote:It amazes me how antagonistic zealots become when it is pointed out that things have been getting better for the billions of the earth, despite generations of gloom and doom predictions--no food, the doomsday clock, peak oil, global warming, climate change, ocean acidification, catastrophic weather...there will always be false prophets
First time I have heard climate scientists referred to as "false prophets"... reminds me of the Republican War on Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Sc ... on+science" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 8:57 am
by downeykp
I am just a lowly middle school science teacher. So, 90% of the worlds science community is saying that global warming is bad, but a vocal 10% is right? WTF!!

What if the 10% are wrong? We are really screwed? If the 90% are right then we can do things to make the planet a healthier place. Is there something wrong with a healthy planet?

If the 90% are wrong the worst thing that can happen would be a cleaner healthier planet.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 9:44 am
by rcyoder
downeykp wrote:
If the 90% are wrong the worst thing that can happen would be a cleaner healthier planet.
But change is hard! I mean, the 1%ers who are making their money from cheap dirty energy would have to change the way they make money or get passed on the Forbes Billionaires list.

Oh, sorry, that gets phrased in the financial press as "That would destroy the economy as we know it!" - Right, just like every *other* technological change.

Re: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

Posted: Wed May 15, 2013 11:44 am
by apvbguy
rcyoder wrote:


But change is hard! I mean, the 1%ers who are making their money from cheap dirty energy would have to change the way they make money or get passed on the Forbes Billionaires list.

.
do you really believe this stuff?
do you really think that simplistic view of why people aren't making the same exact choices you make are the reason for all the world's woe?