Consensus of Scientists and Proof

"frenzied mex" muffed:.. before we.... permanently park our cars....

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

Frescomexico wrote:..., we just know the global climate has been warming.

spot wrote: There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it.

It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

litesong wrote: Put U.S. made wider tires on da car & ah gots ta find ifn they be any good. Da mpg might be low. But dat wide tire will be what's makes those turns secure.... ifn.....

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

Frescomexico wrote:I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Where's all this "money" going to come from?
Who should pay for it?
And exactly how should it be spent?
How much money will it take?
What is the end result target goal for CO2?
Can it actually be achieved?
How long will it take?

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.

Frescomexico wrote:

I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.

How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

GasGuzzler wrote:

How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

How exactly has it damaged the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.
Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.
The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Good grief Sput,
is there nothing you won't believe? Don't have time to go researching penguins for you like I did the Caribou, but here's the blame for the death of 44,000 penguins from the article you posted.

Oh, in an area where it is not warming and sea ice is increasing. Funny stuff!

Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.

I have no idea what Antarctic Sea ice has to do with the subject

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.

How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

Tim the plumber wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

The earth is about a third greener now due to the increase in CO2.

I think that is good.

GasGuzzler wrote:

I have no idea what Antarctic Sea ice has to do with the subject

Just bringing in to question the credibility of anyone making false claims. I want the truth, whether it falls on my opinion's side or not. This crap is nowhere near truth.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Did you also need sea ice extent for Antarctic?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.

That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??

Surface Detail wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:

The Antarctic sea ice extent has little relevance to what we were talking about - the economic feasibility of influencing climate change.

The graph stops for no reason in 2014/2015, thus deliberately omitting the record low sea ice extents seen recently in the Antarctic.

4) The graph for the Arctic sea ice shows a much steeper fall in sea ice extent, but you omit to mention this.

It's now clear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead rather than arguing in good faith.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:

I do apologize....2016 graph below.

The Antarctic sea ice extent has little relevance to what we were talking about - the economic feasibility of influencing climate change.

I know, but Sput went and posted a bunch of propaganda hooey.

The graph stops for no reason in 2014/2015, thus deliberately omitting the record low sea ice extents seen recently in the Antarctic.

I do apologize....2016 graph below.

4) The graph for the Arctic sea ice shows a much steeper fall in sea ice extent, but you omit to mention this.

The article claimed 44,000 dead penguins in the Antarctic.

It's now clear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead rather than arguing in good faith.

Please read the article. There is crap in there even you know to be untrue. Does it not bring into question the validity of the entire content?

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.

How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

Frescomexico wrote:
Spot,
Rather than point out the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 I'll refer you to a scientist who has researched it:

The independent American scientist Indur Goklany wrote a comprehensive report on "Carbon Dioxide — the Good News" for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Spot,
Rather than point out the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 I'll refer you to a scientist who has researched it:

The independent American scientist Indur Goklany wrote a comprehensive report on "Carbon Dioxide — the Good News" for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

What makes you think the report was peer-reviewed? In which scientific journal was it published?

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: Did you also need sea ice extent for Antarctic?

litesong wrote:
....Here's what I've posted hundreds of times.....

Surface Detail wrote:
My apologies, GG, I did skip over a few posts by accident (trying to work at the same time!) and didn't catch the topic shift.

You do have a fair point there, in that conditions in the Antarctic are, I'd have thought, unlikely to have changed sufficiently to have had much effect on penguin populations. The National Geographic article doesn't really seem to match up well with other sources of information either. .

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

How exactly has it damaged the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.

Of course there is evidence;

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.
Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.
The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

For a start.

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: Put U.S. made wider tires on da car & ah gots ta find ifn they be any good. Da mpg might be low. But dat wide tire will be what's makes those turns secure.... ifn.....

Wow! Two of the new tires (from Les Schwab) were way under-inflated (below 20psi). If such had happened on a hot day, taken on the freeway at 80+ mph & failed, people could've died.
Anyhow.... when you purchase tires, get them to double-check air pressures. I can tell that slightly wider tire is a better driving tire, tho.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.

That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??

If you really don't appreciate the fundamental difference between an infinitely recyclable metal and a fuel which can only be burned once, then we have a long way to go here.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .

There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.

I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.

That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??

If you really don't appreciate the fundamental difference between an infinitely recyclable metal and a fuel which can only be burned once, then we have a long way to go here.

Given that flint as used during the stone age was a limited resource your argument is only applicable if you think we will still be using fossil fuels for ever.

It will come to pass that new technologies will be invented. These will replace the burning of fossil fuels. They might well involve solar power or the direct cracking of CO2 out of the air and into fuel.

This will come to pass within the next few decades.

Oil will last for several centuries at least.