How do you feel about your electrical consumption?

[dallasjustice]

Creationist?

 

Neo-Pantheist?

[Dj]

.... "humancentricity". We humans believe we are the center of all things,....

 

It is not about you and your complexes about liberal Californians. It is about 7 billion other people and other species living on this planet.

[Julf]

The Audiophile community needs a bit of saving

 

Maybe what is needed (both on audiophilia and global weirding) is more facts and less rhetoric, emotions and rants?

[Paul R]

Facts are tricky things, they can be used to come to the most insane conclusions. Innocently or otherwise.

 

But in general, yeah- that *is* what I just said.

 

"Spend the money in research to find out what is going on" - that means find out the facts, but also find out what the facts mean.

 

In the case of electric bills, yes, if everyone saved $200/year on their electric bill, there would be massive savings in electric bills, and probably significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, notably C0₂. Or there might not, as developing countries take up the economic slack and produce much greater emissions as well as raise the prices on products they produce. There also might be massive cost increases in health care as people deal with excessive heat, cold, or other environmental conditions. Which of course, vary wildly from one location to another.

 

Not enough research has been done to accurately model any of that.

 

-Paul

[Priaptor]

"In AGW, we should be spending our money in research to find out what is going on, not cutting our economic throats trying to "save the planet." The planet doesn't need saving, it will recover from anything we humans can do to it"

 

Exactly my point. The "Humancentricity Principle".

 

No doubt we have an impact on climate, just like every other species, just like the Gulf Stream, just like every other physical factor.

 

Interesting that during the days of the American Revolution, the "mini-ice age" allowed for people to cross from Brooklyn to Manhattan without a boat, from Long Island to Connecticut without a boat and almost caused George Washington to lose his Battle of Trenton.

 

It also accounted for the extinction of The Vikings.

 

It is also why America was settled by predominately beer and whiskey drinking people rather than people of wine preference as vineyards could no longer be supported in the now colder climates of England.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. Humans will eventually die off and their impact on earth will quickly be eliminated and Mother Earth will live on, until her ultimate extinction.

 

In the meantime I am going to enjoy my power hungry amplifiers.

[mav52]

This is, of course, a statement which no responsible climate scientist agrees. But I'm sure in the bubble you live in created by the fossil fuel industry, that you and Rush and Mitt, this reality does not exist.

 

Al Gore " Mr Global Warming" said it's true, so it must be

[Priaptor]

It is not about you and your complexes about liberal Californians. It is about 7 billion other people and other species living on this planet.

 

DJ,

 

So do tell us, what YOU are doing to save all those people and other species on this planet? The Law of Unintended Consequences usually reigns supreme with Politically Correct thinking, such as what is indeed being witnessed in California. So in order to reduce "pollution", the EPA (a body by the way, that bypasses the Delegation of Powers Clause of American Constitution and has free reign to do anything) has imposed such rigorous regulations that most of the manufacturing that once took place in CA has moved to China. Guess what? Since China has much less strict requirements, their manufacturing plants produce almost 10x the pollution of their American counterparts. Guess What? All that pollution from China is estimated to make up over 50% of California's pollution by the year 2020 as China's pollution crosses the Pacific to land in California.

 

This is the Law of Unintended Consequences, that we Americans fail to grasp and will continue to ignore over and over and over again. I can list a ton of these examples where the cure is worse than the illness.

 

My bet-The super-volcano at Yellowstone will destroy humans before humans completely destroy themselves.

[beetlemania]

It is merely a theory with some positive and some negative evidence, . . .

 

Can you please point me to the peer-reviewed negative evidence? Certainly, some lines of evidence are stronger than others but I'm not aware of negative evidence. And even if one line of evidence is negative (or wrong), there still are multiple other lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. Regardless, I am genuinely interested to read any negative evidence you know of.

[esldude]

Hey, the research has been and is being done. I don't know that it is completely unanimous, but it leans in that direction. When you look at a problem from several different ways and keep getting similar answers it might mean something. Unfortunately, I think it is one of those uncomfortable truths that will not be accepted. Sort of like cables in audio.

[dallasjustice]

Hey, the research has been and is being done. I don't know that it is completely unanimous, but it leans in that direction. When you look at a problem from several different ways and keep getting similar answers it might mean something. Unfortunately, I think it is one of those uncomfortable truths that will not be accepted. Sort of like cables in audio.

 

ESL,

I think it would be safe to say that the views of those for and against would "null" down to about -132db if put through the paces on your bench. :-)

[Paul R]

Can you please point me to the peer-reviewed negative evidence? Certainly, some lines of evidence are stronger than others but I'm not aware of negative evidence. And even if one line of evidence is negative (or wrong), there still are multiple other lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change. Regardless, I am genuinely interested to read any negative evidence you know of.

 

This is very tricky, because I don't want to argue with you or appear to belittle your thinking, nor go so completely offtopic here as this would lead to. But I would enjoy discussing with you, and if you are really interested, can we take this discussion offline?

 

-Paul

[wgscott]

Don't worry about taking my thread off-topic. This is actually much more interesting (at least to me).

[wgscott]

ESL,

I think it would be safe to say that the views of those for and against would "null" down to about -132db if put through the paces on your bench. :-)

 

Actually, I don't think it would be safe to conclude this at all. However, even if it was the case, truth is not established by social consensus.

 

The empirical evidence is what needs to be evaluated, not the opinions of pundits. There is also absolutely no rational reason why one's assessment of the empirical evidence should have anything to do with partisan politics.

[Dj]

DJ,

 

So do tell us, what YOU are doing to save all those people and other species on this planet?

 

 

I am in my 40's and had only 3 month car in my entire life. Took the transit, bike and train to school, university and work in all three continents I have lived. My average electricity bill is about $25 a month and we cook mostly at home. I am vegetarian so there is no energy waste for creating food for the beef and getting its meat on my table. I turn off everything which I don't use. I changed my light bulbs into energy efficient more than 20 years ago when I was a student and started recycling my trash at that time, although I figured creating trash is stupid in the first place.

 

At the same time I figured that my consuming habit only gives more power to those alpha boys and girls in Texas, London, Amsterdam (Dutch queen Beatrix) and etc. to manipulate and invade countries to get their cheep oil and to slave me and making me more dependent on my consuming habit. All that with the cost of the misery of other people in poor countries because of their resources.

 

 

... has imposed such rigorous regulations that most of the manufacturing that once took place in CA has moved to China......

 

 

Guess what? They didn't do it because of the rigorous regulations but because of the cheap manufacturing cost in China.

 

 

... Since China has much less strict requirements, their manufacturing plants produce almost 10x the pollution of their American counterparts....

 

 

Why don't you lobby your politician to force the manufacturer to produce with less pollution? Just put a clause in the contract and say to the Chinese if you don't produce with less pollution we close the factory? Trust me, the Chinese are hungry and they would do it. But Guess what? Neither your politician give a damn, nor the factory owners because you don't care and I am from a third world country and have no right to say a thing in my own country, nor in your country. So it is all up to you because if I would say more they would put me in jail or kill me but you have at least more rights because of the near perfect constitution you have in your country.

 

My bet-The super-volcano at Yellowstone will destroy humans before humans completely destroy themselves.

 

Amen!

[dallasjustice]

Actually, I don't think it would be safe to conclude this at all. However, even if it was the case, truth is not established by social consensus.

 

The empirical evidence is what needs to be evaluated, not the opinions of pundits. There is also absolutely no rational reason why one's assessment of the empirical evidence should have anything to do with partisan politics.

 

What is funny is that I never mentioned politics. I agree that science is not a democracy. That's why statements like those made by Samsa are so ironic.

 

Most people think their views aren't political and that every reasonable person agrees with them, which then makes their views factual. That is, it's only the person who disagrees with their facts who is playing politics and must have some other industrial-conspiracy agenda. For the record, I am not a Republican or Democrat. I primarily vote for Libertarian candidates when given the option. I have never made money from anything related to the energy industry. I just think there's plenty of evidence to show that the sun is the primary driver of global warming, not man.

[wgscott]

What is funny is that I never mentioned politics.

 

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth. I am sure you can guess my vote.

 

Sorry, I assumed "vote" implied something other than selecting a poll option. (There are many reasons one might want to keep an eye on energy consumption, quite apart from any mention of the "myth.")

 

I just think there's plenty of evidence to show that the sun is the primary driver of global warming, not man.

 

It is certainly true that without the sun, the globe would not be very warm.

 

But I will be charitable here, and assume what you mean is that solar fluctuations are responsible for climate change, rather than combustion of fossil fuels.

 

Probably the most compelling empirical evidence to the contrary is that the isotopic ratio of carbon in atmospheric CO2 reflects fossil fuel combustion trends as well as oceanic temperature trends. How would you explain that away with a solar flux theory? (If one is a young-earth creationist, then appeal to the fossil record I understand is less compelling.)

 

By the way, prosecutors always kick me out of the jury selection pool as soon as they hear I am a scientist. Does this have anything to do with scientists having a strong idea about what constitutes "reasonable doubt"?

[beetlemania]

This is very tricky, because I don't want to argue with you or appear to belittle your thinking, nor go so completely offtopic here as this would lead to. But I would enjoy discussing with you, and if you are really interested, can we take this discussion offline?

 

I am fine communicating with a PM but I see that the OP wants to air the off-topic. Interesting that you mention "thinking". Critical thinking and intellectual rigor are sorely lacking from the public debate (which is more about how people *feel* about the subject). What *is* the evidence for and against anthropogenic climate change?

 

In my line of work, I examine organisms that are directly affected by temperature and population success/failure of these organisms can be significantly modified by climate warming . . . I am familiar with a broad amount of the evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change, including the "infamous" hockey stick temperature reconstructions based on dendrochronology (tree ring studies). I mention that specifically because it might be the "weakest" and most controversial evidence of human-caused climate change but nevertheless is consistent with the many other lines of evidence. So, I am serious (and curious): please direct me to peer-reviewed literature that is contrary to a hypothesis of human-caused climate change. A link(s) will suffice.

 

And given that we seriously straying from computer audio, this will be my last post on the topic.

[Dj]

 

You know of course, AGW is not a myth. It is merely a theory with some positive and some negative evidence, and a whole lot of "save the planet" excitement behind it.

 

-Paul

 

Paul, No disrespect but "A theory with some positive and some negative evidence"? Then perhaps you are not aware of the following report:

 

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

 

97% means 97 of 100 where as 3% is 3 of 100. And the report says:

 

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

[dallasjustice]

Sorry, I assumed "vote" implied something other than selecting a poll option. (There are many reasons one might want to keep an eye on energy consumption, quite apart from any mention of the "myth."

 

 

 

It is certainly true that without the sun, the globe would not be very warm.

 

But I will be charitable here, and assume what you mean is that solar fluctuations are responsible for climate change, rather than combustion of fossil fuels.

 

Probably the most compelling empirical evidence to the contrary is that the isotopic ratio of carbon in atmospheric CO2 reflects fossil fuel combustion trends as well as oceanic temperature trends. How would you explain that away with a solar flux theory? (If one is a young-earth creationist, then appeal to the fossil record I understand is less compelling.)

 

By the way, prosecutors always kick me out of the jury selection pool as soon as they hear I am a scientist. Does this have anything to do with scientists having a strong idea about what constitutes "reasonable doubt"?

 

The oceans and the atmosphere are different things. The ocean heats up and cools off many hundreds of years after the sun heats up and cools down. I don't have all of the data in front of me. I would just refer you to:

http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/04Cryosphere.pdf

 

Btw, Prosecutors kick you off of juries because you are too smart. I used to be a prosecutor and I hated to have people like you on my juries. :-)

 

Use of the phrase "fossil fuel" would ironically be something a creationist would endorse. Obviously, oil doesn't come from dead dinosaur remains. :-)

[Dj]

Which best characterizes your opinion?

 

Awesome topic! It is a lot more interesting than the thread about the USB cords and SQ differences. ;-)

[4est]

Sorry, I assumed "vote" implied something other than selecting a poll option. (There are many reasons one might want to keep an eye on energy consumption, quite apart from any mention of the "myth.")

 

 

 

It is certainly true that without the sun, the globe would not be very warm.

 

But I will be charitable here, and assume what you mean is that solar fluctuations are responsible for climate change, rather than combustion of fossil fuels.

 

Probably the most compelling empirical evidence to the contrary is that the isotopic ratio of carbon in atmospheric CO2 reflects fossil fuel combustion trends as well as oceanic temperature trends. How would you explain that away with a solar flux theory? (If one is a young-earth creationist, then appeal to the fossil record I understand is less compelling.)

 

By the way, prosecutors always kick me out of the jury selection pool as soon as they hear I am a scientist. Does this have anything to do with scientists having a strong idea about what constitutes "reasonable doubt"?

 

Thanks Bill, the next time I am up for jury duty I am going to use that one if I cannot figure out another method before hand...

[orgel]

I would just refer you to:

http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/pdf/04Cryosphere.pdf

 

Perhaps not an unimpeachable source. Here's an article about the Heartland Institute and the International Conference on Climate Change:

 

Heartland Institute/International Conference on Climate Change (2009) - SourceWatch

 

I'll grant you that it makes perfect sense for the energy industry to try to discredit the preponderance of climate-change research. I was working at American Petroleum Institute at the tail end of their effort to discredit research on the health effects of tetraethyl lead in gasoline. (Er, I wasn't working on that.)

 

--David

[Akapod]

It is certainly true that without the sun, the globe would not be very warm.

 

Thank you, wgscott, for making my day.

[Dj]

It is certainly true that without the sun, the globe would not be very warm.

 

Thank you, wgscott, for making my day.

 

You didn't know that? I am certain he is correct!

[wgscott]

-- Imagine you are sitting in your office simply doing your job and a nasty e-mail pops into your inbox accusing you of being a fraud. You go online and find that some bloggers have written virulent posts about you. That night, you're at home with your family watching the news and a talking head is lambasting you by name. Later, a powerful politician demands all your e-mails from your former employer.

 

It sounds surreal. But it all happened to me.

 

What was my offense? I worked on climate change research that indicated the world is a lot warmer today than it was in the past. Because that research caught the public's attention when it was released in 1998, I became one of dozens of climate researchers who have been systematically targeted by a well-funded anti-science campaign.

 

Ironically, as these attacks have grown, the scientific facts have become ever clearer. Climate scientists know the world is warming and human activity -- particularly burning coal and oil -- is the primary driver. The idea of addressing climate change threatens some people in the fossil fuel industry. And a vocal minority of corporate interests and their ideological allies are spending a lot of money to hijack the public debate about climate change.

 

I call all this the "scientization" of politics. Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers. The tobacco industry did it when scientists linked cigarettes to cancer. The lead industry tried to discredit a scientist who found that lead exposure hurt children's cognitive abilities.

 

more