Is belief in global warming much different than religion?

Tags: al, belief, blind, climate, global, gore, warming

Views: 1663

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

At the end of the day, the lack of consensus and (nearly) religious fervor leads me to not buy into the extraordinary claim.

Those are both irrational reasons, even if they were true.

There's doctrine and adherents on both sides. I'm letting them fight it out.

There's doctrine and adherents on both sides. I'm letting them fight it out.

The science of climate change is not "doctrine".

Sure, when it comes to global warming there are "both sides" of the issue. Likewise, when it comes to the shape of the earth.

Really? A large nuclear exchange couldn't cool the atmosphere? Maybe a "nuclear winter" was a stretch, but we know that large volcanic eruptions have had cooling effect on the planet.

I love your avatar. It makes me happy. You are also a cool dude and I appreciate our exchanges.

I appreciate most exchanges among this group, because people here make me think. You're also kind of making my point.

1) Is there a crisis?

2) Before we deny something desirable and useful of ourselves (cheap energy), how sure are we of premise #1?

The weather is sort of the ultimate chaotic system I think. Furthermore, who are we to say what it should be like? To what degree have we all agreed that there's a problem?

John Stossel is not the smartest man I've ever seen (no offense John). but I think he's an honest and sincere researcher and reporter. I bring him up because he points out that the one consistent factor in determining quantity and quality of human life is money.

Let's sum it up this way:

The poorer people are, the shorter they live. SO before we abandon the least expensive ways to power this lovely society of ours, SHOW ME THE BENEFIT of abandoning fossil fuel for costlier alternatives. Make a good case or STFU. Making energy expensive or unavailable decreases the quantity and quality of human life.

SHOW ME THE BENEFIT of abandoning fossil fuel for costlier alternatives.

You're making two misleading claims here. (1) That we must abandon fossil fuel (presumably entirely). (2) That alternative energy sources are more costly. On what basis are you making these claims?

The cost of alternative energy is plummeting. The cost of solar energy panels has dropped 99% since 1980. The cost per watt of solar has dropped 75% since 1980. Solar costs keep decreasing.

The cost of gasoline has increased about 285% since 1980. It's going nowhere but up. Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense spent $3.7 trillion to guard the Persian Gulf from 1976 to 2007, another $366 billion to defend oil supplies in the Middle East from 1980 and 1990, and another $3 trillion on the Iraq War, which was about oil as much as anything else.

-----------

"99% cheaper: In 2012, rooftop solar panels cost about 1% of what they did 35 years ago, and since 2008, total U.S. solar PV deployment has jumped by about 10 times– from about 735 megawatts to over 7200 megawatts. During that same time span the cost for a PV module has declined from $3.40/watt to about $0.80 /watt, and this has catalyzed a rush in solar deployment." (Source: US Dept of Energy p.4)

1) Make a good case or STFU.

The case for climate change has been made many times over. Support your ongoing claims that the case is faulty or STFU.

@GM:

Did you include the effect of inflation or the cost of a gallon of gas in relationship of average wage in this statement?

"The cost of gasoline has increased about 285% since 1980."

Here's a different view:

The "real" price of gasoline: Gasoline cost 27 cents a gallon in 1949 compared to around $3.60 today.* How has the relative cost of buying gas changed over the last 63 years? Presented here are two tables computing the annual "real" cost using our seven indicators, one in 2012 dollars, and the other in 1949 dollars. While the two tables show the same trends, they do give a different perspective.

Using the 2012 table and the CPI and the GDP deflator, we see that gasoline was quite expensive in 1980 and 1981 and the cheapest in 1998 and 1999. Today, the real price using these two measures is higher than the period at the beginning of the 1980s.

By looking at the share of the Consumer Bundle and GDP per capita, the story is a bit different. In 1981, a gallon of gas took as much out of what the average consumer spent as $3.90 does in 2011. And as a share of GDP per capita, gas was even more expensive in those earlier days with it at over $5.02 in 1980 and more expensive in the earlier years. Both wage indexes show the prices then and now are similar.

The other table tells the story in a different way. Let us look at relative cost to a worker to fill up using 1949 dollars. That year the 27 cents it cost for a gallon of gas, took a certain share of the worker's wage. The interesting question is, has the cost as a share or percent of the worker's wage increased or decreased over time? The table shows that for the two wage rates and price of gasoline in other years, this cost has fallen. Since wages have increased faster than the price of gasoline, by 2012 an unskilled worker spends less than two-thirds as much, as a percent of wage, for a gallon of gasoline than the 1949 worker. For a production worker it is only half. The table shows that the $3.61 a worker paid in 2012 would be comparable to only 19 to 23 cents (in 1949 prices "share" of the wage.

When we use the GDP per capita, the cost has fallen faster. Looking at the table shows that a gallon of gasoline costs around 13 cents a gallon (in 1949 prices) if measured as a "share" of the GDP per capita. This is because in 1949, 27 cents was .015% of per capita GDP, while in 2012, $3.61 was .007%.

Finally, comparing its cost as a share of GDP, we see that in 1949 prices, it is about 6 cents. This means that a gallon gasoline was six times larger as a share of output in 1949 than it is today.

Source  

Click on: The "real" price of gasoline.

Did you include the effect of inflation or the cost of a gallon of gas in relationship of average wage in this statement?

No. Why should I? The US Department of Energy report made no mention of inflation and average wages relative to the cost of solar panels, either.

Click on: The "real" price of gasoline.

Does the "real" price of gasoline include the $3.7 trillion spent to guard the Persian Gulf from 1976 to 2007, the $366 billion spent to defend oil supplies in the Middle East from 1980 and 1990, and the $3 trillion spent on the Iraq War?

How about the $12 billion to $52 billion annual corporate welfare program for Big Oil? Is that included in the "real" price of gasoline?

Let's insert some of the missing parts from that article. For starters, it misrepresents the NAS report's stated purpose. The article in Forbes claims that the NAS article...

America’s Climate Choices asserts that humans are the primary cause of recent climate change that poses significant risks to human welfare and the environment. The report asserts we need to act now to fend off future harms.

The NAS article itself says...

"America's Climate Choices makes the case that the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action now to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts."

The NAS report is not about scientific consensus on global warming or even about the evidence for global warming. This is a report on what to do about global warming: limiting the impact. (It's part of a consensus that, according to you, Andy, doesn't exist.)

With similar journalistic integrity, Forbes has cited this follow-up NAS report which asserts that global warming, besides being man-made, is causing kidney stones. Well, fuck. That just doesn't pass the laugh test, either.

"For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science,"

Surely, a wonderful person like Steve Forbes-- being a mouthpiece for the Oil Lobby, a former Republican presidential candidate, and the publisher of Forbes-- could have his people cite a scientific study with a large statistical sample that actually asks climate scientists.

For instance, one Google search brings up several results in this area, including one study featuring 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries, of whom 86% agreed that global warming is certainly underway, with just 2.6% disagreeing (p. 5).

But I'm sure Forbes magazine overlooked that out of pure innocence. I mean, come on. Imagine how misleading it would be to cite one report that isn't primarily about the global warming consensus, features a small number of scientists (many of whom are not climatologists) and then claim on behalf of-- sorry, who exactly says so?-- that it's the "definitive" indicator.

"Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey."

I'm sure it does. From the AMS meteorologist survey distributed in 2011: "A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they “don’t know” (7%)." (p. 5).

Surely, a wonderful person like Steve Forbes-- being a mouthpiece for the Oil Lobby...

Poison the well much? A little ad hom as well.

Poison the well much? A little ad hom as well.

Thus, Unseen issues his standard 'proclamation without explanation'.

Poisoning the well is a type of ad hom fallacy.

I didn't attack Forbes personally. I pointed out that Forbes has an extensive history of making false statements that mirror Big Oil industry talking points. This addresses the argument in the Forbes article above and is relevant for the same reason: the article is misleading.

Is there any consensus on valid data sources for information on global man made climate change crisis?

Otherwise, I don't even see the point of research, let alone panic.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 1 Comment

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 3 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service