Considering that Futurecurrents steadfastly refuses to read my many, and repeated, answers to his question, I'm more, and more inclined to think that Tsing Tao's suggestion to Lucrum that he do laps around NYC with a banner trailing from the plane that reads "Is Co2 a greenhouse gas?" is a good idea.
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
This is a straight forward, sensible and measured reply to Futurecurrents. I wish I'd have thought of responding that way rather than wasting my time with his pointless question.
FC does tend to be aggressive. However, one does reach a point where a desire for excessive rigor becomes unrealistic. That's what levels of significance are for. If we wait for 100% certainty, it will be too late to do anything about it, assuming that the results show that something should be done. Or should have been done. If we hadn't insisted on absolute certainty.
More than a few scientists believe that it's already too late, and given the continuing misunderstanding over "climate change" (changed from "global warming" since few people understood that global warming can and usually does cause cooling), they're probably right. And it is not unreasonable to suspect that those who are against cleaning up the air, the water, and the land have some motive other than benign skepticism.
Not that I get involved in this much because I'm one of those who thinks that even if it weren't too late to have any appreciable effect, we wouldn't do it anyway. Difficult as it may be to believe, we'd rather die.
More than a few scientists believe that it's already too late, and given the continuing misunderstanding over "climate change" (changed from "global warming" since few people understood that global warming can and usually does cause cooling), they're probably right. And it is not unreasonable to suspect that those who are against cleaning up the air, the water, and the land have some motive other than benign skepticism.
Not that I get involved in this much because I'm one of those who thinks that even if it weren't too late to have any appreciable effect, we wouldn't do it anyway. Difficult as it may be to believe, we'd rather die.
You think he'd be installing heat and air units for a living if he could?
So Luc, how about you? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes or no.
Oh hell nevermind. You don't even know what that is. Way too stupid. Go post a cartoon again.
This is basically Ricter's position, I think, and at one time it was mine as well. And if we accept that we don't yet know whether rising CO2 from man's activities is going to cause serious, damaging climate change, then I will say, while I don't quite agree, that this is at least a reasonable position.
I have now looked at this issue enough that I have become convinced that the Hansen hypothesis is wrong and that the temperature is virtually independent of CO2 concentration. Having decided this, the only reasonable position for me to take with regard to the carbon credits issue is that that I have already stated, viz., "It would be a mistake to press forward with expensive carbon credits schemes unless these can be justified on some basis other than the "Hansen Hypothesis".
I'd like to comment again on FC's often stated statistics re how many of this kind of scientist or that believe the Hansen hypothesis is correct. I've noted in another thread that scientific questions can't be answered by opinion polls, but I did not go far enough. Even if a few percent of scientist experts do not agree with an hypothesis, in science, this is a huge disagreement, and the hypothesis is in trouble. All of the "settled issues" in science find virtually universal acceptance of their truth.
I put "settled" in quotes because there is technically no such thing as a settled issue in science. All theories, even those accepted for many years as correct, are subject to rejection if a single inconsistent observation crops up.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying, or at least I hope I do. But, as I've asked before, what difference does it make? This or that hypothesis is irrelevant to me. If even a simple majority of scientists who know far more about this than any of those here who argue about it decide at a high enough level of significance that yes, this is a problem and yes, we contributed to it and are making it worse, then that seems to me to be sufficient justification for action. The "expense" of reducing pollutants of whatever sort is a non-issue when we are talking about our survival as a species.
But, as I've said, the odds that we will do anything at all are slim. And if I were 20 or 30, I'd be real pissed. But I'm not. So I'm just resigned. I do take considerable comfort in knowing that when we are all gone, the planet will be thrilled.
BTW, have you ever read The Hab Theory? Silly, but fun.
"I have now looked at this issue enough that I have become convinced that the Hansen hypothesis is wrong and that the temperature is virtually independent of CO2 concentration. "
So piehole does not think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Interesting. Bold and unique view.
So piehole does not think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Interesting. Bold and unique view.