AGW Theory - Discussion

They won't listen, too many of bought into the religion of AGW and "humans are evil consumers". It makes them feel morally superior to believe this, and for them to change their belief they would have to first acknowledge they were wrong to begin with. That in turn means acknowledging their moral superiority was itself wrong, and that is a incredibly hard thing to do.

We've already gone over the data alterations and how they were used to create a narrative. Nobody even said the Earth wasn't warming in the long term, only that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that the increased warming between 1970 and 1998 was caused by human burning of CO2 and even less sufficient evidence to support it continuing indefinitely. We've already seen that the sudden warming trend stop and reverse slightly and we are now back to the regular natural warming that is expected.

Remember our planet doesn't stay the same exact temperature, it oscillates constantly between really warm and really cold with many interruptions and reversals in-between those two extremes.

A blog published by Judith Curry, the same woman lauded for her contrary positions on the last page. Even she, as a scientist, isn't so tremendously stupid as to dismiss the necessity of data correction. That's only coming from the ignorance being displayed here.

I linked that because it's a very thorough and straightforward explanation of the process. You choose to ignore it because you literally cannot understand these things. I don't expect any commentary on the methods fron any dissenters here since this has never been about AGW theory for almost the entire 30+ pages of this thread. That's not a reflection on the science, that's all you.

You also ignored the peer-reviewed study I linked earlier. No comments on that?

Honestly, I'll say again for the 59th time, I'd rather we focus on visible pollution, like chemicals used in fracking to other toxic chemicals dumped into rivers and other bodies of water. Reduce smog, like in China for example. Most importantly focus on creating better sources of energy that produce much more power and pollutes a lot less, like nuclear. Well fusion ideally (hopefully I got that right this time).

This 'war on carbon dioxide' is just ridiculous, provides nothing helpful, and it's basically a scheme/scam to put more money in the hands of schmucks. Yes the climate is changing, no one is arguing that.

Are humans responsible, who cares at this point, this debate is counterproductive and just wastes time (Talking about the CO2 debate, obviously humans are responsible for pollution). Focusing on a gas that takes up about .04% of the Earth's atmosphere and using fear mongering to tax people, companies, and industries that release CO2 into the air is a scam. Knock it off already and let's do something that actually makes a difference. So much money and time being wasting on CO2.

I've always supported conservation and environmentally friendly policies, as long a they are reasonable. The problem is the most public and active environmental groups are also the most extreme, to an almost militant level.

Chaos' point of view tends to be mine in many ways as well. Global warming is happening. The degree of man's involvement is debatable and requires more research. I personally think there's sufficient evidence to say we've contributed, if not completely caused, global warming but I'm also not a scientist myself.

But I've always supported the vast majority of "green" changes anyhow because living in an industrial wasteland is shitty, and I've seen first-hand the ravages of mineral extraction ranging from "mild" (19th and early 20th century oil wells and equipment littering the landscape turning otherwise beautiful areas into eyesores and tetanus hazards) to "severe" (polluted waterways, areas clear cut of all vegetation, mountainsides ripped apart irreparably for the coal inside regardless of the ecological, geological, and biological impact).

There are, of course, the economic sides of things to be discussed and I can (believe it or not) see the benefits to both sides of that particular coin, but given the choice I'll side with the alternative energies side of things as often as I can for reasons both pragmatic and philosophical.

Yet it is actually a problem and needs to be addressed.

I was almost going to type out a response kinda similar addressing the gradual changes that need to occur, rather than raising people's energy bills and killing jobs.

There's certainly an economic aspect, as well as the mining aspect being the more environmentally damaging part. Even mining for the materials needed for solar panels has a negative impact, but in the long run may have a net positive effect.

Solar power is alright, but personally I always see it as supplemental, and not an alternative.

When it comes to solar and its supplemental nature, as currently constituted, absolutely. I'd like to think further research and development will see that change, however.

I mean, hey.

We've managed this:
I figure someone out there has the brains to make the collection power of this:
Into the size of this:

I think I already said it before, but biosolar is already a thing and more than capable of taking care of people's individual needs.

Industries need more power. Biomasses have a great potential there too.

You know that the same sources of CO2 are also the sources for other problems as well. Burning coal and other fossil fuels release a ton of other things so you should still care about it even if you are unwilling to accept science about CO2 and such.

Sulfer Dioxide
Nitrogen oxide
Soot and ash
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Carbon Monoxide
Arsenic

Granted, some of these are only in smaller amounts as they are impurities in the burned fuel but they do cause issues and they have a cumulative effect.

And if you are concerned about money, I have to point out that the Oil and Gas and mining companies are likely to lose a ton of money on these proposed regulations. I wonder how much it would benefit them to fund people to speak out against AWG and make people think it's a hoax.

Also, everyone in this thread needs to take a freaking statistics and data class and learn about the adjustments that often need to be made to make data usable from various sources and different tools. It's admittedly complex but so are things like satellites needing to make tiny adjustments to their time due to their speed. It seems from someone who doesn't have any knowledge that time would not need adjusting because it should be the same everywhere but relativity deems it necessary. This is science. And it's proven everyday you use the GPS on your phone.

We're all saying the same thing in slightly different ways. Basically that regardless of the CO2 issue, fossil fuels have a host of other problems and the main things they have going for them right now are 1) The infrastructure is already established and 2) There's a host of economic boons to them.

And the bottom line is that despite the plethora of associated problems, those are two very large boons. So large that they actually cause a host of problems all of their own.

Nothing is simple when it comes to sweeping away old infrastructure to usher in new. While we can browbeat people for not wanting to move away from fossil fuels, I think it's relatively safe to say we certainly understand why many don't want to even if we don't agree (for any reason).

Well, considering that nearly everyone considers tax credits as a subsidy when it comes to oil/gas production, it would be reasonable to think that, when you say to shift the "subsidies" to renewable or alternative sources, you assume that they don't exist in the first place....

Also, I'm for using renewable sources of energy, such as hydro and solar energy. I'm 100% for solar, since that's where I get a small portion of my money from.

Just because I'm not buying into the zealots and their religion doesn't mean I don't want to look into other forms of energy. Hell, I say we should go nuclear instead of coal anyday.

Not really. People call tax credits corporate welfare. Oil is actually subsidized. And the reason people are upset about petro tax credits is because they're artificially making oil more affordable, when affordability is one of the major factors holding back alternative energy research and investment.

Only idiots call tax credits corporate welfare.

Wait, people are upset because the energy they currently use is affordable?

You do know that the average tax credit on a barrel of oil is roughly about $3.25, right? When oil is $30 or $120, it stays the same. I highly doubt that's making oil affordable, period.

That tax credit gets diluted really quickly too....

That would be nice.

You got me here. I don't think I've ever heard of this.

I'd have to research it and such and then be able to to reiterate it in the form of an academic research paper with valid academic sources in order to formulate an opinion, etc. on it. Then do my own research, find more sources, and then be able to teach a bunch of Chinese university students about it, have them be graded on their ability to learn about it then have them be able formulate their own opinions on it that goes beyond regurgitation of information.

It's my new standard on how I declare whether or not I know anything about a subject. It's what I get paid to do too.

Next assignment when I start work again in January that involves alternative energy, I'll see if I can incorporate it. Last time was on solar energy and its economic viable in Inner Mongolia in the scope of the AIIB and China's One Belt One Road initiative.

Until then, I can't say I know anything about it, so idk. I'm sure I'll have another assignment that I can throw it in to as economics is one of my specialties along with politics, of course, so naturally when it comes to energy policies it could work. I'll have to remember to toss it in as they like it when I introduce new concepts.

You can doubt it all you want. People dislike that the price of oil is used constantly as justification for lack of alternative energy yet the price of oil is artificially deflated.

And, yes, 10% is a lot, even when oil was at it's highest, the subsidy was almost 5%, and that's not counting the generous terms of drilling permits and of course the very generous tax conditions given on the local and state level to petro operations.

If oil is so much cheaper than clean energy, why does it need so many tax breaks?

I'm not really interested in arguing about it, that's the perspective of at least the people who are upset about the state of energy progress that I know personally.

If the government gives out tax-free money, will you refuse it if you don't "need" it now?

You forget that these companies are run by people who have the best interest in the company in mind. If you were given the option to receive money and refuse it, you are obviously not thinking in the best interest of the company in mind.

That's basic business 101.

Alternative energy is still either in the research/development stage (which costs a lot of money to do) or in the first stages of production (which still costs money, but at least they are trying to recoup the money from their previous R&D stage). Of course it's going to be expensive to purchase. Assuming it's not is idiotic at best...

Again, that's basic business 101.

And I'm saying the government should take that money away from oil & gas.

Good, now go protest at Washington DC. I'm sure Obama is willing to hear from you.

I don't believe I said anything about oil companies. Also, taking free money is not the same as lobbying for it. This is really basic stuff, and you're trying to make a perspective statement into a partisan argument. I'm out, later.

Concept isn't restricted to oil companies, bub. That's why it's basic business 101...

The fact that your opinion has zero scientific basis doesn't bother you in the slightest?

This was supposed to be a place for an evidence-based discussion, no? (Reread your OP.) All your doing is just ignoring well-substantiated conclusions in favor of misinformation and conspiracy theories, i.e., the usual counterargument around here.

Perhaps people would be more susceptible to a shift in our energy paradigm if they weren't getting fed some *** about wealth distribution by those conniving, money-grubbing scientists or whatever. The general populace doesn't give a ***about the environment until it affects them so the push for fossil fuel alternatives will continue at a snail's pace thanks in part to the misconception that the underlying need for change is a hoax.

Agwé, the god of water, told me he'd flood my village if I didn't pee in the gas tank of Saevel's car

By all means, post some evidence that proves Global Warming. It has yet to be done by anyone here or more importantly ever! Your last damn post said everything is based on GOOD FAITH ASSUMPTIONS. You call that SCIENCE! smh.....

They are not well-substantiated stop saying they are!

You obviously have not been paying attention, not surprising. I have yet to see one single person say that green energy should not be used or developed.. Stop parroting false claims!

I would bet if they had the balls to come out and say it was a hoax, stop using all the money wasted on this scam called Global Warming. Then use that money to develop green energy, we would ALL be much better off. I would also bet that it would be much, much more widely accepted!

All you did was quote mine. You can't comment on any methods because you're incapable of understanding them. Don't comment on what you think the science is. It is clearly beyond you.

When on the internet you can be an expert on everything.

I would like to know... For each of you who think that warming is not caused by or accelerated by human's intervention. What would convince you otherwise? Is there anything?

Specifically and with as much detail as possible. Generic answers like "proof" are meaningless.

All you do is quote climate scientists, claim you "understand" and anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated. You then proceed to stomp your feet and call everyone ignorant when those climate scientist work is proven nonfactual and corrupt. I have yet to see you actually "think for yourself" in any of these climate forums.


If all these climate scientist truly do understand the climate then it should be fairly simple for them to predict it. Except, every single time they have, they have been completely and utterly wrong!

They have been going on about Climate change for over 75yrs and have NEVER been correct! It is beyond shocking how many people follow along and allow this to continue!