Trolling thread

[Hurricane]

My reaction to this thread comes down to two simple questions:

1) Do I believe that carbon emissions from Human civilization are responsible for "climate change"?

Honestly, I don't think we have the answer to this question. Yes; there are a variety of metrics that scientists can measure that show that things are changing.

Are they directly attributable to Human carbon emissions? Dunno, and I don't think we'll know for sure within several lifetimes...

2) Is it feasible or desirable to try and re-tool the energy infrastructure of civilization as a response to these environmental changes?

For me, the answer is definitely not.

Our current infrastructure created the Space Shuttle, nuclear power, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Internet, laser eye surgery... etc. I firmly believe that the only answer is for our society to keep our foot firmly "on the gas" and embrace emerging technologies.

Trying to "mitigate" or reverse the environmental damage in western cultures without being able to mandate similar changes in every nation on the Earth strikes me as an absurd goal, somewhat akin to change a flat tire without the driver slowing down the car...

[Dice]

The question for me is, if you took money out of the equation, would we still be having this argument at all? I mean if petrol was not a massive money making empire that nations where built on and have died over, would we even debate this at all? I don't think so. Because the money you pull money out of this debate, there is no good reason not to switch to renewable's.

I firmly believe that the only answer is for our society to keep our foot firmly "on the gas" and embrace emerging technologies.

Trying to "mitigate" or reverse the environmental damage in western cultures without being able to mandate similar changes in every nation on the Earth strikes me as an absurd goal, somewhat akin to change a flat tire without the driver slowing down the car...

And stopping wars in your part of the world should not be done because you can not stop wars overseas, feeding the poor in Australia should not be done because we can not also at the same time feed all of Asia and holding ourselves to a good moral standing should not be done because we can not hold our neighbours to the same standards? I am sorry if this comment causes you any offence, but your small minded view of the world is half the problem we have right now.

(Edit: Spelling errors)

[Oniya]

It is possible to both embrace emerging technologies and mitigate environmental damage.  Are not alternative energy sources like electricity-producing bacteria and hydrogen fuel cells considered 'emerging technology'?  In addition, some of these methods help to clean up existing environmental damage like this experiment in Bangladesh.

[Ebb]

1) Do I believe that carbon emissions from Human civilization are responsible for "climate change"?

Honestly, I don't think we have the answer to this question. Yes; there are a variety of metrics that scientists can measure that show that things are changing.

Are they directly attributable to Human carbon emissions? Dunno, and I don't think we'll know for sure within several lifetimes...

On what basis, other than your intuition, do you hold this belief? At this point the fact that human activity is the primary driver of climate change is about as widely accepted among climate scientists as the germ theory of medicine. So what source of information do you have that is unavailable to them?

[TaintedAndDelish]

*cough*   FOX NEWS   *cough*

>:)

[Hurricane]

On what basis, other than your intuition, do you hold this belief? At this point the fact that human activity is the primary driver of climate change is about as widely accepted among climate scientists as the germ theory of medicine. So what source of information do you have that is unavailable to them?

Fair question. My answer is mostly based on intuition.

There have been a lot of "pop science" fads that have swept through the consciousness of the public and created a lot of pseudo-scientific zeal among the masses.

Some examples:

Eugenics
The new ice age
Global overpopulation
Anti-innoculation

Just to name a few.

I am deeply suspicious of a "science" like climate change (formerly global warming AND global cooling) because I believe that the primary motivation for those "studying" it is an agenda of social engineering and redistribution of wealth more than out of any real concern over the state of the world.

A perfect example that sets off my more suspicious nature is the idea of "carbon credits". Got some country out there hat's wealthy and successful? Charge 'em some sort of levelling tax to be paid to... I don't even know. Some sort of global fund or something? And of course countries that are less successful, well they don't have to pay - they get credit instead! And even better, major emerging polluters who choose not to participate (because they are totalitarian governments that would just as soon shoot dissidents or climate change activists as listen to them) are conveniently left out of the discussion entirely.

It reeks of "social justice"; not science.

[Oniya]

For what it's worth, the whole 'carbon credits' thing is a product of government and big business - neither of which are amenable to rapid change.  (Also, depending on your level of cynicism, possibly the same entities.)

[Question Mark]

I am deeply suspicious of a "science" like climate change (formerly global warming AND global cooling) because I believe that the primary motivation for those "studying" it is an agenda of social engineering and redistribution of wealth more than out of any real concern over the state of the world.

Global cooling was a rapidly debunked "fad science", as you put it, that took hold in the 70's for a brief time, and has ever since been used by deniers to try and unfairly smear anthropogenic climate change (unfortunately, there exist many a moron who actually believe them).  You could say that global cooling is to anthropogenic climate change what the anti-vaccine movement is to vaccines.

Now, what evidence do you have that the life's work of thousands of scientists is all just a mild excuse for a NWO conspiracy to redistribute wealth?  That the trillions of data collected in favor of this universally accepted theory of anthropogenic climate change are all either falsified or tampered with?  That every climatologist has been perfectly willing to throw away his dignity and passion in this scheme?  That the myriad, tangible, and easily observed phenomena occurring in the world (droughts, hurricanes, rising sea, extreme temperatures) are just coincidentally occurring alongside our exponential use of fossil fuels?  If you provide some real evidence for any of these assertions, I will strip naked, don a fruit cap, and dance a merry jig down Mass Ave to the tune of "Shake, Rattle, and Roll".

I have said it before and I'll say it again: denying anthropogenic climate change is like looking out of your frosted over window, noticing that everyone is wearing heavy winter clothes, observing that there is a foot of snow on the ground, knowing that it is in the midst of January, and spotting a thermometer that reads 10 degrees Fahrenheit ...and then brusquely stating, "What a beautiful summer day, I better go to the beach!"  It is rampant chaos.  It is the antithesis of logic.  It makes no sense.  It is observing one thing and then truly believing it to be its opposite for no other reason than that there is no reason.  It makes no sense.  It is the purest embodiment of intellectual entropy I have ever observed.

This is my true frustration with deniers.  I just have no conceptual notion of how such a nonsensical mind can exist and function in our world.  How do they do it?  How can they be so willfully ignorant or so blissfully stupid?  It makes no sense.  And that is one of the few things in this world that honestly pisses me off.

[Hurricane]

Global cooling was a rapidly debunked "fad science", as you put it, that took hold in the 70's for a brief time, and has ever since been used by deniers to try and unfairly smear anthropogenic climate change (unfortunately, there exist many a moron who actually believe them).  You could say that global cooling is to anthropogenic climate change what the anti-vaccine movement is to vaccines.

We had droughts, hurricanes, rising seas and extreme temperatures before all of the worry about climate change. Are there more instances of those events now? Maybe. I would argue the sample size is still woefully small. Remember that in geological time the Earth is currently in-between ice ages - a fact that somehow is never mentioned by anybody. And we have not idea what caused the previous ice ages... Maybe that "global cooling" thing isn't such a crock, eh?

Now, what evidence do you have that the life's work of thousands of scientists is all just a mild excuse for a NWO conspiracy to redistribute wealth?  That the trillions of data collected in favor of this universally accepted theory of anthropogenic climate change are all either falsified or tampered with?  That every climatologist has been perfectly willing to throw away his dignity and passion in this scheme?  That the myriad, tangible, and easily observed phenomena occurring in the world (droughts, hurricanes, rising sea, extreme temperatures) are just coincidentally occurring alongside our exponential use of fossil fuels?  If you provide some real evidence for any of these assertions, I will strip naked, don a fruit cap, and dance a merry jig down Mass Ave to the tune of "Shake, Rattle, and Roll".

The "thousands of scientists" may well have a personal, vested interested in reaching the conclusions that they have reached. Their reasons may be financial (to get grants, or to raise funds from agitated activists such as yourself) or they may be politically, or socially motivated (to advance the cause of "green" activism or so-called social justice). Let's be honest; any scientist who dedicates their professional career to "anthropogenic climate change" (great term, very serious sounding) almost certainly has a strong bias on the matter to begin with. Or are you not even willing to concede that point?

I have said it before and I'll say it again: denying anthropogenic climate change is like looking out of your frosted over window, noticing that everyone is wearing heavy winter clothes, observing that there is a foot of snow on the ground, knowing that it is in the midst of January, and spotting a thermometer that reads 10 degrees Fahrenheit ...and then brusquely stating, "What a beautiful summer day, I better go to the beach!"  It is rampant chaos.  It is the antithesis of logic.  It makes no sense.  It is observing one thing and then truly believing it to be its opposite for no other reason than that there is no reason.  It makes no sense.  It is the purest embodiment of intellectual entropy I have ever observed.

This is my true frustration with deniers.  I just have no conceptual notion of how such a nonsensical mind can exist and function in our world.  How do they do it?  How can they be so willfully ignorant or so blissfully stupid?  It makes no sense.  And that is one of the few things in this world that honestly pisses me off.

Sorry you're mad bro.

Let me say it again: maybe it's real. Maybe it's just more pop science which is exciting to the masses but will have no impact on the future of our world once the fad dies out.

Either way: I don't care.

If we can't convince China, Russia, India, Pakistan or any of the second world nations in Central and South America to immediately convert to a pursuit of "green" renewable energy sources, all the railing in the world about convincing western civilization to do so is a waste of time. The world will continue to experience whatever effects you think we're creating while Europe and the US deliberately stall our own infrastructure and development through needless self-limitations.

What would this so-called "stall" affect?

I'm so glad you asked: I believe that nano-technology and other emerging technological advancements (3D printing for example) and even more heretofore unforseen advancements will have a much more profound impact on how we produce goods than if we arbitrarily impose a bunch of BS restrictions on ourselves in some misguided quest to try and curb our society's need for resources and energy.

Does my philosophy mean that we might lose polar bears and other species? Maybe. But here's the thing: I've never actually seen a polar bear. Polar bears are not a part of my diet. My personal and national economy are not based on polar bears, and my cultural heritage and/or religion do not hold polar bears as sacred objects.

So if they were to disappear I'll continue to raise my kids, do my job, live my life. The world will spin on. I say, keep the pedal to the metal and let's see where this crazy train is headed!

[Hurricane]

For what it's worth, the whole 'carbon credits' thing is a product of government and big business - neither of which are amenable to rapid change.  (Also, depending on your level of cynicism, possibly the same entities.)

I have boundless cynicism when it comes to those entities, but I happen to think that big business is a lot more capable of rapid change than government (if not amenable).

Free markets drive businesses, and as such there are forces that can drive them adapt to self-optimize. No such limiting forces exist on governments.

[Vekseid]

We had droughts, hurricanes, rising seas and extreme temperatures before all of the worry about climate change. Are there more instances of those events now? Maybe. I would argue the sample size is still woefully small. Remember that in geological time the Earth is currently in-between ice ages - a fact that somehow is never mentioned by anybody. And we have not idea what caused the previous ice ages... Maybe that "global cooling" thing isn't such a crock, eh?

Making false claims does not convince people of your argument.

We know exactly what causes the glacial-interglacial periods - the routine shutdown and reboot of thermohaline circulation. The shutdown is triggered by melt from Greenland's ice cap, causing it to cool again, causing the melt to stop, rebooting the 'global conveyor'.

It is believed that yes, global warming may end up triggering a premature shutdown of this convection. Since it is a thousand-year cycle, the effects are not going to counteract the rise in temperature from man-made emissions anytime soon. Models are expecting Cretaceous temperatures by the end of the century.

As I mention and source in my first post, human activity resembles and igneous province - except what normally takes thousands of years is compressed into roughly two centuries. Whether or not you believe humanity can is rather irrelevant - we do have geological data that gives a parallel to what humankind is doing to the planet. It's happened 19 times in the geological record, 11 of which are associated with mass extinctions.

The "thousands of scientists" may well have a personal, vested interested in reaching the conclusions that they have reached. Their reasons may be financial (to get grants, or to raise funds from agitated activists such as yourself) or they may be politically, or socially motivated (to advance the cause of "green" activism or so-called social justice). Let's be honest; any scientist who dedicates their professional career to "anthropogenic climate change" (great term, very serious sounding) almost certainly has a strong bias on the matter to begin with. Or are you not even willing to concede that point?

You don't even know what science even is, nor are you the slightest bit interested. You could take part and do research on your own, but instead you take your time here.

Simply put, no.

These people put up with death threats, threats to their funding, and the like, from people such as yourself. They work long hours, for little pay, to come home to see people like you on TV who know next to nothing about what you are talking about - as you have demonstrated - but are willing to claim otherwise, given equal weight by a media now more interested in controversy than finding truth.

Let me say it again: maybe it's real. Maybe it's just more pop science which is exciting to the masses but will have no impact on the future of our world once the fad dies out.

Either way: I don't care.

Okay, so... why are you posting about it?

People are already taking action. Not just because it's green, but because e.g. solar power actually saves money. Elliquiy is technically 'carbon green' for crying out loud. I'd be surprised if the Drudge Report isn't.

[Hurricane]

Making false claims does not convince people of your argument.

As I mention and source in my first post, human activity resembles and igneous province - except what normally takes thousands of years is compressed into roughly two centuries. Whether or not you believe humanity can is rather irrelevant - we do have geological data that gives a parallel to what humankind is doing to the planet. It's happened 19 times in the geological record, 11 of which are associated with mass extinctions.

You don't even know what science even is, nor are you the slightest bit interested. You could take part and do research on your own, but instead you take your time here.

Aw c'mon Vek, I thought you were better than that - you don't know a thing about me, save for whatever opinions or facts I've chosen to share. But thanks for being a perfect example of progressive right-think. If you don't agree with the prevailing popular beliefs these days, you're either dismissed or pilloried.   

But your point is terrific in that it offers a great segue; which is to say that people who clearly feel differently than I do (such as yourself) don't bother to refute the central point of my argument, which is that wasting time on "greening" the western world is less efficient than looking to new technologies to transform the world in coming days.

Not to mention the obvious fact that arguing that the more peaceful, democratic civilizations of the west that are open to such a progressive stance are not the only supposed culprits in this situation. Are you proposing that communist China is going to be willing to adopt anti-carbon technologies and policies? If so, I'd say you're being surprisingly naive.

Simply put, no.

These people put up with death threats, threats to their funding, and the like, from people such as yourself. They work long hours, for little pay, to come home to see people like you on TV who know next to nothing about what you are talking about - as you have demonstrated - but are willing to claim otherwise, given equal weight by a media now more interested in controversy than finding truth.

Whoa, easy there big fella. I don't threaten anybody. Isn't that kind of a big jump to make? Once again - sorry if I touched your progressive nerves, but just because you decide to get self-righteous about things, don't make me out to be a monster.

I do find it interesting how the mere idea that climate change scientists might have some sort of secondary agenda really seems to make you upset. I take that as proof positive that there's a glimmer of truth in my suspicions. As I mentioned, this is the common strategy of progressive right-think - if you don't agree with the popular position then you're to be mocked or vilified.

Okay, so... why are you posting about it?

People are already taking action. Not just because it's green, but because e.g. solar power actually saves money. Elliquiy is technically 'carbon green' for crying out loud. I'd be surprised if the Drudge Report isn't.

I've never read the Drudge report in my life. Once again, I'd ask that you not to profile me based on your own biases. And the reason I post on this topic is for precisely this interaction. Al Gore has made millions in the "green" arena, and so have countless others. And I firmly believe that many, if not most the "climate change" agenda is a scam job.

I'm not saying that climate change science may not be right. I'm just saying that pursuing self-flagellating policies is self-defeating and short-sighted. Better for us to continue to follow the natural course of the emerging free market and look to emerging technologies and techniques rather than try and enforce some sort of social engineering solutions that may lead to loads of unintended consequences. 

And frankly I've spent too much time staying silent and seen too much damage to our society not to have a voice anymore.

[Vekseid]

Aw c'mon Vek, I thought you were better than that - you don't know a thing about me, save for whatever opinions or facts I've chosen to share. But thanks for being a perfect example of progressive right-think. If you don't agree with the prevailing popular beliefs these days, you're either dismissed or pilloried.   

You made multiple easily debunked falsehoods in the very first paragraph of your post.

You then went on to promote a common conspiracy theory. Making direct accusations against people who want to make the world a better place, some of whom are members here.

If you had spent fifteen minutes getting your facts straight, and skipped the baseless accusations, then you'd be mostly arguing:

But your point is terrific in that it offers a great segue; which is to say that people who clearly feel differently than I do (such as yourself) don't bother to refute the central point of my argument, which is that wasting time on "greening" the western world is less efficient than looking to new technologies to transform the world in coming days.

Not to mention the obvious fact that arguing that the more peaceful, democratic civilizations of the west that are open to such a progressive stance are not the only supposed culprits in this situation. Are you proposing that communist China is going to be willing to adopt anti-carbon technologies and policies? If so, I'd say you're being surprisingly naive.

"What we should do about it" is really a tangential topic, and no, the worst of it doesn't have easy solutions. Liberals who think carbon credits were a good idea or that nuclear power === evil don't help either. That also isn't relevant to the point of this thread.

The point of this thread is that humanity has, without any doubt, had an immense impact on the planet's environment, and the oceanic record paints a completely unambiguous picture.

Wherever you wish to take your argument, the request I am making with this thread is that you begin with facts.

Whoa, easy there big fella. I don't threaten anybody. Isn't that kind of a big jump to make? Once again - sorry if I touched your progressive nerves, but just because you decide to get self-righteous about things, don't make me out to be a monster.

I do find it interesting how the mere idea that climate change scientists might have some sort of secondary agenda really seems to make you upset. I take that as proof positive that there's a glimmer of truth in my suspicions. As I mentioned, this is the common strategy of progressive right-think - if you don't agree with the popular position then you're to be mocked or vilified.

I've never read the Drudge report in my life. Once again, I'd ask that you not to profile me based on your own biases. And the reason I post on this topic is for precisely this interaction. Al Gore has made millions in the "green" arena, and so have countless others. And I firmly believe that many, if not most the "climate change" agenda is a scam job.

I'm not saying that climate change science may not be right. I'm just saying that pursuing self-flagellating policies is self-defeating and short-sighted. Better for us to continue to follow the natural course of the emerging free market and look to emerging technologies and techniques rather than try and enforce some sort of social engineering solutions that may lead to loads of unintended consequences. 

Because it, like many baseless accusations, hurts real people, and is no small part in why these death threats get made.

It would be easy for you to get proof - you could just do the research yourself. Funny how often whenever a climate skeptic does this, they're either bankrolled by industry or stop being a skeptic.

But no, you want to hide behind your own martyr complex - after martyring others - and stick labels on me.

Again, some of the people you malign are members here.

And frankly I've spent too much time staying silent and seen too much damage to our society not to have a voice anymore.

Whatever. Stop making baseless accusations, stop making false claims. At the very least, be willing to acknowledge when you are mistaken or taking things too far.

[Hurricane]

Let me add my two cents here even if I fear being stoned  :-) As I have said in other places I am a long time environmental professional [24 years in the field] When it comes to climate change I am not entirely convinced it is all man made. Just look at the name change from global warming to climate change for example and it tells you the jury is still out a bit. When we talk of these mechanisms we are talking about vastly complicated things that have many contributing factors and despite our human tendency to think things are always about us they are not. For example some evidence arose last week that indicated our poles may be shifting http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/pole-shift-it-has-started.html this is a natural phenomena that has occurred many times in the earth's history. It might also have an effect on climate because the magnetic field influences solar rays and the solar wind and how they interact with the earth. Volcanism also has an effect on climate as is pretty much indisputable.

My personal opinion not backed up by any data is that it is a combination of things. Change virtually never takes place in a vacuum. And yes I think human activity probably has and is having an affect I just do not think it is the only thing involved in climate change.  Having said that I think doing all we can to control the emission of green house gases and the like is something we could and should do. It is part of the reason why I went into the environmental field, I got tired of looking at the mess we are making of things. And trust me over the course of my career I have seen visible improvements.

But as Hurricane said when speaking of a global problem it adds up to being a sort of symbolic and meaningless gesture unless everyone in the world is on board. That includes countries like Russia and China and even more so smaller nations that their people do not have the luxury of worry about the environment in years to come because they were worrying about where their next meal is coming from. And I do not think any of us really plan on moving back into a cave without climate control in the near future even if we could for the good of the planet.

So with that in mind I feel we should do all we can to preserve the environment including the factors that influence climate change. And those who fail to follow these concerns should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.    -But- be careful to not give into the chicken little the sky is falling mind set one might read on the internet. Politics and science are both vastly complicated with many influencing factors and climate change is a marriage of the two. While I am not real up on the science of climate change because I work in land pollution I can tell you my phone often rings with someone who is terrified on the other end because of something they read or saw on TV. I supply them with facts in my area of expertise and well most times they do not let those interfere with what they think. We see the same phenomena when it comes to climate change.

My advice is do what you can, do what is right because even though I have never seen a polar bear other than in a zoo I honestly think they are very important. But much like investment you must consider your standard of living and the constraints of our personal situations as well as the demands of society. Shutting down the electric grid is not practical and would unleash a whole other set of problems [yes, I know I went extreme with the list example but it was for illustration.]

Hey Vek...

+1

- H

[Ebb]

Hurricane -

In all of your posts under this discussion you have yet to offer a single fact. Every statement you've made has either been your opinion, or unprovable. There is no basis for discussion unless we agree on what constitutes evidence. It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't bring anything to the table. If you just want to trade opinions we can do that, but that makes it impossible for the discussion to go anywhere.

If you have no evidence other than intuition, gut feel, suspicions or conspiracy theories, then frankly you have nothing. There's literally nothing to talk about.

Here's an analogy: Suppose you're having a discussion with someone who fervently believes that vaccinations cause autism. They make the following statements:

• I heard on TV that vaccinations cause autism.
• It makes sense to me that autism is caused by vaccinations.
• The people who make vaccines are making a lot of money off of them, so of course they don't want to stop them.
• Science has been wrong about things before, so when scientists say vaccines don't cause autism, I don't trust them.
• This one kid got a vaccination, and then they turned autistic.

Now, which of these statements are provable, and thereby worth discussion? Not "true" - true or false can be determined later. But provable. Which statements are amenable to discussion, and debate, and the application of evidence? The rest is literally filler. It adds nothing to the discussion, no matter how loudly the anti-vaxxer may shout it.

That's exactly what it's like talking to climate change deniers such as yourself. This is not just a discussion about climate change. This is a discussion about standards of evidence, and level of discourse, and what kind of thought and inference should be used when making decisions that affect billions of people. It's about human progress, which you claim to be an advocate of. Technological progress comes from rigorous engineering, application of the scientific method, and logical thought. You literally cannot be a fan of science and technology without admitting that that mindset is what got us this far. To abandon it when it doesn't fit your preconceptions is hypocritical at best.

This has nothing to do with what is popular, or what is liberal, or which way (if any) this particular discussion board leans. It has everything to do with how you have a meaningful discussion about any controversial topic. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do better. If not, carry on.

[Hurricane]

Hurricane -

In all of your posts under this discussion you have yet to offer a single fact. Every statement you've made has either been your opinion, or unprovable. There is no basis for discussion unless we agree on what constitutes evidence. It's impossible to debate with someone who doesn't bring anything to the table. If you just want to trade opinions we can do that, but that makes it impossible for the discussion to go anywhere.

If you have no evidence other than intuition, gut feel, suspicions or conspiracy theories, then frankly you have nothing. There's literally nothing to talk about.

Here's an analogy: Suppose you're having a discussion with someone who fervently believes that vaccinations cause autism. They make the following statements:

• I heard on TV that vaccinations cause autism.
• It makes sense to me that autism is caused by vaccinations.
• The people who make vaccines are making a lot of money off of them, so of course they don't want to stop them.
• Science has been wrong about things before, so when scientists say vaccines don't cause autism, I don't trust them.
• This one kid got a vaccination, and then they turned autistic.

Now, which of these statements are provable, and thereby worth discussion? Not "true" - true or false can be determined later. But provable. Which statements are amenable to discussion, and debate, and the application of evidence? The rest is literally filler. It adds nothing to the discussion, no matter how loudly the anti-vaxxer may shout it.

That's exactly what it's like talking to climate change deniers such as yourself. This is not just a discussion about climate change. This is a discussion about standards of evidence, and level of discourse, and what kind of thought and inference should be used when making decisions that affect billions of people. It's about human progress, which you claim to be an advocate of. Technological progress comes from rigorous engineering, application of the scientific method, and logical thought. You literally cannot be a fan of science and technology without admitting that that mindset is what got us this far. To abandon it when it doesn't fit your preconceptions is hypocritical at best.

This has nothing to do with what is popular, or what is liberal, or which way (if any) this particular discussion board leans. It has everything to do with how you have a meaningful discussion about any controversial topic. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do better. If not, carry on.

I love how mad you are! I also love that no matter how many times I say it, you keep coming at me with the same arguments.

Here are the facts that I am offering:

FACT 1) Even if climate change is real, I don't agree with pursuing a policy of changing anything about our current energy infrastructure.

FACT 2) The current carbon-based energy infrastructure has proven to be an excellent platform for technological and societal growth and evolution.

FACT 3) Emerging technologies (like 3D printing) will transform the economic and manufacturing landscape of the entire world more than we can imagine in the next 50 years.

OPINION 1) Unless "green energy" changes could somehow be created and implemented all over the world in short order, there's no way to change the current world-wide trend towards building or extending the current carbon-based energy infrastructure.

OPINION 2) Non-compliance from emerging nations and totalitarian governments, combined with the natural economic and political competition between nations make world-wide adoption of said theoretical "green energy" changes a virtual impossibility.

OPINION 3) We shouldn't even try and change the current infrastructure. We should simply rely on the market forces that drive innovation and invention, rather than imposing new and draconic restrictions on those same forces.

That's it - that's the totality of my position. Not that hard to understand, and hardly a vicious attack on anybody. And to be frank, while I'm not a climatologist, I haven't heard one single person refute a single one of those points.

But here's an interesting collection of the tenor of terms used to reply to me:

• petty
• moron
• hypocritical
• baseless
• tangental
• false claims
• willfully ignorant
• blissfully stupid
• small minded
• martyr complex

This is the kind of thing that I find sad: that people like you are developing this weird, group-think where everybody has to have the same opinion or else be castigated. Especially here on E, where open minds are supposed to be welcomed and encouraged.

I'm not surprised that more moderate voices (like the post by Retribution for example) are hesitant at best to speak up in public conversation when there's this level of knee-jerk hostility present. Funny that he agreed with me, huh?

If you wonder why people aren't a little more receptive to your message, maybe take a look at the messenger ;-)

- H

[Blythe]

I have no particular feelings one way or the other about your viewpoint, Hurricane. But this is a portion of the forum for debate and discussion, so:

FACT 1) Even if climate change is real, I don't agree with pursuing a policy of changing anything about our current energy infrastructure.

Please do not present your opinion as a fact.

FACT 2) The current carbon-based energy infrastructure has proven to be an excellent platform for technological and societal growth and evolution.

No one ever said they hadn't promoted growth. This topic is not about that. This is about the level of harm they can also cause on our environment in the form of climate change. So this is somewhat off-topic.

FACT 3) Emerging technologies (like 3D printing) will transform the economic and manufacturing landscape of the entire world more than we can imagine in the next 50 years.

This is a little better and closer to the topic at hand--ways to combat climate change. 3D printing, once it gets out of the "expensive and slow" stage, might have potential, but it's still unclear how useful it would ultimately be. I would welcome reading some other sources on the matter, though, if you have some info on that, particularly if you know of an article better than mine (I sometimes have problems dredging up good sources!).

If you are going to present something as a fact, please present sources to accompany those facts. The original post has presented sources dealing with facts regarding climate change. You have, as of yet, not supported your position with evidence, but I would like to invite you to do so, because it would make for a much more productive and interesting discussion.

Bowing out for now, but it's my hope you return to the topic with a bit of research.  :-)

Edit: Fixed a few strange sentence structures.

[Hurricane]

I have no particular feelings one way or the other about your viewpoint, Hurricane. But this is a portion of the forum for debate and discussion, so:

Please do not present your opinion as a fact.

It is a fact that I believe that. That's all I meant by that point, not that my position was unquestionably true.

:)

[Blythe]

It is a fact that I believe that. That's all I meant by that point, not that my position was unquestionably true.

:)

Ah, thank you. It might help if you put it in the opinion section, though! I think you had a bit of emotional context there that went over my head (I blame the fact that text loses most of its nuance). You had me confused a bit there--you have an apology from me about that.

But I do mean what I said. You are welcome to present your position with some sources so there can be a better debate, and I do encourage you to do so. I would just appreciate a bit more than intuition in a debate topic, because debating intuition would be a bit, well, unproductive, because we could all go in circles all day long.  ;D

(Edit: Guh, I actually really need to bow out now, or the PROC will eat my free time!)

[Hurricane]

This is absolutely false, and is the primary falsehood that we're struggling to stamp out here. It is an incredibly dangerous notion. The fact that people believe this to be true is why it is so important that we don't skip the step in the discussion about 'what caused climate change'.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The overwhelming scientific consensus from researchers in the field is that human activity has been the cause of over 50% of climate change, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels and through deforestation. There are few things in the world that I'm dogmatic about, but this has to be one of them. This is true.

I make no accusations here about either you or your friend in the field, Darwishi. But it is incredibly frustrating to again and again come across this viewpoint that these matters are "open to debate" or that "the answer is somewhere in the middle" or that "we can't really know". The fact is that we do know, beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is no agenda or bias here, there is just reams and reams and reams of scientific data and analysis.

Now we can have in-depth and productive conversations and debates about what we can do about it, and in fact there is a much wider range of opinions on that matter. That part of the problem is still up in the air, so to speak. However, and again please don't take this personally, it has been my experience that any discussion about solutions and paths forward which takes place with someone who doesn't accept the above fact ends up being unproductive, as the conversation tends to keep sliding back to some middling point of "well, maybe it will just all work out, since it could be this is just a natural cycle."

Once again, just to be clear, this is simply not true. We do know this, and we know it to a degree of certainty comparable to knowing about continental drift or the efficacy of vaccines. At the above link (http://www.ipcc.ch/) there is essentially a complete distillation of what science understands about climate change. It's a gigantic document, containing the work of over a thousand researchers. (There's a 28 page "summary for decision makers" that's an easier read.) The researchers who contributed to this report are not part of some conspiracy, they are not all secretly funded by environmental groups. They are hard-working reputable scientists from across the political spectrum situated in over eighty countries around the world.

There is no shame in not being informed about an issue. But claiming that the answer to a question is unknown when in fact it is settled science is just incomprehensible to me.

Here's an interesting bullet point from the IPCC wikipedia entry:

"Since the mid-20th century, most of the observed warming is "likely" (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[26] due to human activities.[29]"

66%?

That doesn't sound like "settled science" to me...

- H

[Hurricane]

Here's another interesting point:

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries even if GHG emissions were to be reduced sufficiently for GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks".[46]"

- H

[Ebb]

Here's an interesting bullet point from the IPCC wikipedia entry:

"Since the mid-20th century, most of the observed warming is "likely" (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[26] due to human activities.[29]"

66%?

That doesn't sound like "settled science" to me...

- H

That is a quote from the 3rd assessment report, which was released in 2001.

The fourth report, released in 2007, contains this quote:

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[45] due to human activities.[44]

The fifth report, to be released in 2014, contains this quote:

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]


Really, Hurricane, this is a matter of scrolling down literally one screen from where you pulled your quote. I have a really hard time believing that you're entering into this discussion in good faith, versus merely trying to rile up others or somehow "win" the debate. Could you please reassure me that this was an honest error on your part?

[Question Mark]

Ebb already called you out on your first cherrypick, so allow me to address your second point.

Here's another interesting point:

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries even if GHG emissions were to be reduced sufficiently for GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks".[46]"

- H

I'm not sure if you meant to sabotage your own argument with this quote, because that's exactly what you've done.  You claim to not care one way or another, and yet here is a quote you picked highlighting just how serious our situation is.  What exactly are you trying to accomplish with all of this, assuming you're not a troll?

[Hurricane]

Here's a list of the "thousands of scientists" that contributed to the report:

1.   Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany)
2.   Timm Zwickel (Germany)
3.   Thomas Bruckner (Germany)
4.   Steffen Brunner (Germany)
5.   Patrick Eickemeier (Germany)
6.   Felix Creutzig (Germany)
7.   Manfred Fischedick (Germany)
8.   Jochen Harnisch (Germany)
9.   Susanne Kadner (Germany)
10.   Stephan Klasen (Germany)
11.   Volker Krey (Austria / Germany),
12.   Jan Minx (Germany)
13.   Steffen Schlömer (Germany)
14.   Christoph von Stechow (Germany)
15.   Elmar Kriegler (Germany)
16.   H.-Holger Rogner (Germany)
17.   Ryan Wiser (USA)
18.   Leon Clarke (USA)
19.   Sivan Kartha (USA)
20.   Charles Kolstad (USA)
21.   Howard Kunreuther (USA)
22.   Karen Seto (USA)
23.   Kristin Seyboth (USA)
24.   Robert Stavins (USA)
25.   David Victor (USA)
26.   Steven J. Smith (USA)
27.   Mercedes Bustamante (Brazil)
28.   Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil)
29.   Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil)
30.   Helena Chum (Brazil)
31.   Helmut Haberl (Austria)
32.   Keywan Riahi (Austria)
33.   Anthony Patt (Austria / Switzerland)
34.   Edgar Hertwich (Norway / Austria)
35.   Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway)
36.   Joeri Rogelj (Switzerland / Belgium)
37.   Michiel Schaeffer (Netherlands)
38.   Detlef van Vuuren (Netherlands)
39.   Reyer Gerlagh (Netherlands)
40.   John Broome (UK)
41.   Jim Skea (UK)
42.   Pete Smith (UK)
43.   Navroz K. Dubash (India)
44.   Joyashree Roy (India)
45.   Nijavalli H. Ravindranath (India)
46.   Eswaran Somanathan (India)
47.   Sujata Gupta (India / Philippines)
48.   Kejun Jiang (China)
49.   Dadi Zhou (China)
50.   Ji Zou (China)
51.   Marc Fleurbaey (France)
52.   Shardul Agrawala (France)
53.   Ellie Farahani (Canada)
54.   Gabriel Blanco (Argentina)
55.   Shobhakar Dhakal (Nepal / Thailand)
56.   Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia)
57.   Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba)
58.   Youba Sokona (Mali)
59.   Luis Gómez-Echeverri (Colombia)
60.   Giovanni Baiocchi (Italy)
61.   Omar Masera (México)
62.   Ralph Sims (New Zealand)
63.   Thomas Sterner (Sweden)
64.   Taishi Sugiyama (Japan)
65.   Sangwon Suh (Republic of Korea)
66.   Kevin Chika Urama (Nigeria)
67.   Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary)
68.   Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russia)

I took a little time to group them according to where they were from. I thought that was interesting...

[Hurricane]

Ebb already called you out on your first cherrypick, so allow me to address your second point.

I'm not sure if you meant to sabotage your own argument with this quote, because that's exactly what you've done.  You claim to not care one way or another, and yet here is a quote you picked highlighting just how serious our situation is.  What exactly are you trying to accomplish with all of this, assuming you're not a troll?

You guys insist on lambasting anyone who tries to participate in the thread that has a skeptical view of your position.

As to the point above, I think it reinforces my position perfectly, that being that advocating the enforcement of mitigation strategies in the carbon-based energy infrastructure makes very little sense if, as according the quote above it will supposedly take hundreds of years to self-correct.

[Ebb]

Here's an interesting bullet point from the IPCC wikipedia entry:

"Since the mid-20th century, most of the observed warming is "likely" (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[26] due to human activities.[29]"

66%?

That doesn't sound like "settled science" to me...

- H

That is a quote from the 3rd assessment report, which was released in 2001.

The fourth report, released in 2007, contains this quote:

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[45] due to human activities.[44]

The fifth report, to be released in 2014, contains this quote:

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]


Really, Hurricane, this is a matter of scrolling down literally one screen from where you pulled your quote. I have a really hard time believing that you're entering into this discussion in good faith, versus merely trying to rile up others or somehow "win" the debate. Could you please reassure me that this was an honest error on your part?

Hurricane, unless you can respond directly to this point I will no longer engage in conversation on this topic with you. I need reassurance that you are having this discussion in good faith rather than trolling.

[Hurricane]

That is a quote from the 3rd assessment report, which was released in 2001.

The fourth report, released in 2007, contains this quote:

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is "very likely" (greater than 90% probability, based on expert judgement)[45] due to human activities.[44]

The fifth report, to be released in 2014, contains this quote:

Human influence on the climate system is clear.[66] It is extremely likely (95-100% probability)[67] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.[66]


Really, Hurricane, this is a matter of scrolling down literally one screen from where you pulled your quote. I have a really hard time believing that you're entering into this discussion in good faith, versus merely trying to rile up others or somehow "win" the debate. Could you please reassure me that this was an honest error on your part?

You guys keep getting angry when reasonable people try to participate in the discussion and raise doubts as to the validity of the scientific arguments.

I'm trying to demonstrate why people might approach this issue with some skepticism. Yes, there are a number of percentages posted on the wiki page, but the first number posted is the one I quoted.

Don't you think that shapes people's perceptions of the issue? It isn't necessarily an evil plot or stupidity.

[Ebb]

You guys keep getting angry when reasonable people try to participate in the discussion and raise doubts as to the validity of the scientific arguments.

I'm trying to demonstrate why people might approach this issue with some skepticism. Yes, there are a number of percentages posted on the wiki page, but the first number posted is the one I quoted.

Don't you think that shapes people's perceptions of the issue? It isn't necessarily an evil plot or stupidity.

You mistake passion for anger. I am not angry. I am, however, passionate about this topic. It is good for people to be passionate about topics that they believe in; I hope that is true for you in some area, and I can promise you that I would not mock such passion were we discussing some area that you felt equally strongly about. I respect people who have strong, well-founded beliefs about any number of subjects, even if those beliefs don't match mine. I believe that I have treated you with respect, and if I have not then I apologize. I also request similar respect from you.

You are asking me to take on faith that it was a simple oversight that caused you to pull a quote from a thirteen year old report rather than one due for release this year. Fine, I will accept this. Now given that, can we agree that the more modern reference is the one that we ought to be using? And can we further agree, then, that the fact that human activity is largely responsible for the recent ahistoric trend in climate change is, indeed, "settled science"?

I do appreciate your efforts to demonstrate why some people may approach this subject with skepticism. In fact, that's one of the two reasons why I engage in this or any other public discussion -- to better learn how people are thinking when they espouse opinions that I can find no base for. The other reason is to attempt to persuade those who may be reading along. I'm not here to win anything, and I'm not here with any real hope of trying to convince you in particular to re-evaluate your conclusions, though that would be a nice bonus.

[Hurricane]

Hurricane, your reply suggests that since we have already caused drastic change that would take a long time to correct, we just give up and drive the situation further out of control?

<snip>

What I want to see:

Renewable energy sources, the sooner the better:

Wind and water-based turbine systems, there is plenty of room on the Earth, especially at sea
Large solar plants: it's reported that a 1.5 x 1.5 mile square in the Nevada desert could collect enough power to replace the entire current system of power plants
Advance batteries/power storage: We need carbon-based batteries, nanotubes show promise but something like graphene is probably more feasible at this point.
Hydrogen fuel cells (the most abundant element in the Universe): Optimal vehicle fuel source, byproduct is water
More efficient electrolysis process: Break that water back into hydrogen and oxygen to be recycled for more fuel cells.

As one of my previous posts suggested, the whole world does NOT need to switch all at once, only the main economic centers. The U.S., China, and the E.U. would do wonders and provide time for the rest to slowly move off.

I realize that my post yesterday regarding 3D printing might not have had the impact that I was expecting on this conversation, considering that some of you may not have any interest in emerging technologies in the stock market.

While I cannot, unfortunately source the information that I'm about to relay (it's from The Motley Fool http://www.fool.com/) and their paid investment advice, let me say that the single hottest market for investment currently is the field of 3D printing.

In financial circles 3D printing is seen (again, I hope you'll just take my word on this) as a potential revolution in goods production as significant and far reaching as the desktop printer was to desktop publishing. Perhaps even more far reaching, considering that 3D printing is also expanding into the medical realm as experiments continue with printing things like ears etc.

The investment world's general line of thinking on 3D printing is that given time (say 10 years maybe) it has the capacity to completely change the goods production and distribution model that we currently understand.

If it becomes possible for us to simply buy "templates" and then print consumer goods ourselves, this would (clearly) transform every industry and production and distribution infrastructure on the planet. (again, this is conjecture and supposition on my part, based on movements in the economic markets. But that's where smart money is investing right now).

Which leads me back to why I hold the position that I do: 3D printing is an advancement that is a natural outgrowth of the free market and research and development. assuming that all of the stuff that I said is true (admittedly, conjecture - but backed by real movements in the financial markets) then the "shape" of the business infrastructure of the world may be headed for a huge transformation in very short order. And (again, just my conjecture, but not unreasonable I think) one that will change and probably ameliorate (to an extent) the carbon emissions profile of the industrialized world.

And that's just one potentially transformative technology. I'm a huge far of Neil Stephenson, and his novel The Diamond Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age) presents a speculative view of a world shaped by the wildly transformative power of nanotechnology. 

These (and other) factors are why I reach my conclusion that pushing for mitigation efforts through governmental policies seems unnecessary and possibly highly detrimental to the "natural" evolution of transformative technologies that will almost certainly have a profound impact on the current situation.

So basically, yes. Do nothing, because (in my considered opinion) there are looming changes, and doing something to enforce change in the current infrastructure has the very real possibility of delaying, redirecting or completely derailing emergent solutions to the problems that you've identified.