Seven pages in and the cause-and-effect still has to be spelled out? Hmmm... what's more damaging - participate in the deliberate stalling of the discussion by challenging nonsense at every turn, or debunk nonsense once and trust the audience see it for what it is every subsequent time it's recycled in the thread. I'm not sure.

At least there's minor consolation to be found in the amusement provided by the nay-sayers who realize that they need to acknowledge at least some human responsibility for climate change in order to have any credibility, yet go out of their way to submit ridiculous arguments to trash any reasonable link between human activity and climate change.

Quote:Original post by abstractimmersion
Well, thank you for saying exactly what I meant. Invoking the "Pygmalion effect" is easier than writing that paragraph, and I assumed others would be in the know about it.

They are. It's just a shame you aren't.

The general 'non-student' version of the "Pygmalion effect" is "people will act like what you treat them as".

Quote:
It's a little deeper than "cherry-picking" evidence though. I'm not saying he disregarded data. I'm saying he unconsciously designed his data collection method to acheive confirmation of his theory. That's the Pygmailion effect.

No it isn't. That's confirmation bias.

What evidence do you have to support your claim anyway? Your stated reason for disagreeing with him is that it's "doomsday propaganda".

It seems like you'd rather judge a scientific theory on the basis of whether or not you find its presentation pleasing than on the basis of whether it effectively explains the known facts.

Quote:
When you choose the method to test a hypothesis, you will choose parameters that will yield data that will support your hypothesis, if you believe in it strongly.

Unless you pay careful attention, in which case you'll try to make sure you don't know what the parameters were until the test has finished.

Quote:
And yes, that is exactly what I meant by "aficionados" as well. Like I said, human-caused global warming isn't an exact science, it's an article of faith.

Curious. By putting these sentences in the same paragraph, you have implied some kind of connection betweeen the two, whilst none appears to exist.

Furthermore, you have erred by suggesting some kind of incompatibility between "articles of faith" and "exact sciences". Human-caused global warming is an exact science. It is also an article of faith, because all the natural sciences are an article of faith.

Quote:
I don't deny that human CO2 production might have some affect on global climate, it's just that the argument is so politicized that it's nearly impossible to find trustworthy data on the matter.

Have you tried, I wonder.

The best place to go for trustworthy data is the scientists who collect the data.

Quote:
I for one believe that the possilbe human influence on global climate cycles is very low. Organizations like the NOAA agree with me.

The NOAA says:

Quote:http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
For 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained between 200 to 280 parts per million (ppm). As a result of the industrial and agricultural activities of humans, current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are around 380 ppm, increasing at about 1% per year.
...
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now higher than experienced on Earth for at least the last 400,000 years, and is expected to continue to rise, leading to significant temperature increases by the end of this century.
...
Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from human activities. ... Ocean acidification means that there would be concern over carbon dioxide emissions independently and apart from any possible effects of carbon dioxide on the climate system. ... Ocean acidification could be expected to have major negative impacts on corals and other marine organisms that build calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.

It seems to me that the NOAA don't agree with you.

Quote:
While I'm aware (and have worked out the chemical reactions, though I haven't hazarded guesses as to what human CFC production might be) that CFC's react (anthropocentrically negatively) with ozone, I (and many scientists) think that human production of CFC's is not nearly large enough to CREATE a hole in the ozone layer. We may exacerbate it slightly, but the hole is not the RESULT of human activity.

So you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. At least you're honest about not bothering to collect statistics on CFC production. I'd also note that "human production" is redundant. All CFCs are produced by humans: they are not naturally occuring.

Now it's somewhat irrelevant what you think, since you aren't an expert on CFCs. It might be relevant what these "many scientists" think, but since they are unidentified, there's no way for us to tell.

It is half-way true to say that ozone depletion is not the result of human activity. It is not wholey the result of human activity. Naturally occuring halocarbons cause ozone depletion, and there is also seasonal variation in ozone levels as part of its natural cycle.

The scientific consensus appears to be that halocarbons are a significant contributing factor in ozone depletion. As well as being supported by our understanding of the chemical processes in which halocarbons and ozone interact, there is a strong correlation between CFC emissions and the stability of the ozone cycle.

Quote:
I would bet the guy is concerned with the environment, and found a way to scare people. That is all.

And if the scientific consensus was formed by gambling, that statement might have some value beyond being a restatement of your already quite clear opinion on the matter.

Quote:Original post by AfroFire
uh, we somehow know the carbon dioxide levels from 650,000 years ago, its changed since then, and so we instantly blame it on humans.

Yes, that's right. We instantly blame it on humans. The question of the effect of humans upon our atmosphere isn't something that has been debated for decades. Scientists only came up with it last week.

Quote:
How do you test against that kind of thing -- go back in time, approx 650,000 years ago, get rid of all human existance, and prevent it from happening again, come back to this particular point that we are at now, and measure it again. That's not possible by today's standards guys.

Yeah, quite right. Just like we can't really be sure that the Earth's atmosphere is warmed by the Sun. After all, we can't go back in time and and remove the Sun. So we have absolutely no reasonable basis for claiming that the Sun makes things hot.

Quote:
Its a 50/50 chance

You mean there's a 50/50 chance that human activity has resulted in potentially catastrophic global climate change? Where do you get that figure from?

Are you simply assuming that if there are two possible explanations, each is equally likely?

Even if you're right, are those odds good enough, in your opinion, that we needn't further investigate the possibility that we might be able to reverse whatever damage may have been caused?

Oh Jesus Christ. When are you guys going to give up and figure out, like all the smart people, that science is politics?

Quote:Original post by abstractimmersion
Oh Jesus Christ. When are you guys going to give up and figure out, like all the smart people, that science is politics?

Even if we were in some mysterious alternate Universe where that were true, why would that involve anyone giving up? People already argue about things they know to be politics, so why should science disguised as politics be different?

Furthermore, what is the merit of a post which says, basically, "This argument does not interest me"? If you think arguing about this is dumb, nobody is going to stop you not reading this thread anymore.

Quote:Original post by abstractimmersion
Oh Jesus Christ. When are you guys going to give up and figure out, like all the smart people, that science is politics?

and i assume you are one of the smart people?

science is what you make of it.