Every climatologist I know of agrees we've caused a significant amount of warming. 98% of them agree we've caused most of the warming. The skeptics think that we've caused less than half, although a significant amount. It would help your case very much if you post some evidence to back up your claims. What climatologists are suggesting that we haven't caused a significant amount of warming?
The only thing I'm trying to get across to him is that it isn't up to anyone to convince him to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If he wants us not to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, HE has to convince THEM (governments worldwide) not to do it. That's what happened, for example, with CFCs and sulfur emissions decades ago -- governments agrees to cut emissions, and they did. We don't have to go around convincing the non-believers. Good thing, too.
At the very heart of the response to climate change, however, lies the need to reduce emissions. In 2010, governments agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees Celsius.
You haven't been paying attention to the news at all, have you? Global warming is mentioned all the time, as is the widespread agreement to limit it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by burning fewer fossil fuels.
I'm not trying to prove or convince you of anything. I'm just stating the facts. We (governments around the world) have agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions. If you think we shouldn't, you're the one that's going to have to do the convincing.
"We" is the human race. Where did I say anything about taxes or shutting up? Go scream your lungs out if it'll make you feel better. There's widespread agreement that we want to cut carbon dioxide emissions to limit the warming. But it's not up to you, nor to me for that matter. Don't act like we need to convince you first.
Who said anything about freaking out? All we need to do is get more energy from non-fossil fuel sources. It's mostly about building new electric power plants, so it's not like we need your permission anyway.
Considering that the climate varies according to natural variation such as solar output and volcanic eruptions, both of which we cannot predict, I don't think it's surprising that we can't predict climate exactly, especially over the short term. And just because we can't predict climate exactly doesn't mean the predictions are worthless. That's a false dichotomy.
I read that as saying that it's often the right thing to do to break the law. On the other hand, you can't expect no legal consequences because you did the right thing.
You need to be very careful when doing security research. To expose a flaw in a security system, you often need to break the law, unless you have prior permission to expose flaws in a particular system. When I took Halderman's security class, he warned us that any student who broke the law would automatically get an F in his class.
It's way worse than that. There's a video of someone asking astronomy graduates from an Ivy League university what causes the phases of the moon and the seasons, and most cannot answer. What most people do is choose a belief, then actively look only for confirmation of that belief, even if it's an obviously lame excuse to desperately cling to that belief -- they act with willful ignorance. The Doobie brothers say it best -- see my signature.
Actually, the big bang theory simply says that the universe started in a hot, dense state and expanded into a cold, sparse state. It doesn't even try to explain how the universe came to be in that hot, dense state. It is similar to how evolution does not even try to explain how life started, just how species evolve once they exist.
But also there's lots of misinformation on the Internet. Some people go around looking for evidence to back up what they already believe, and they can often find a BS argument or just downright lies that support their beliefs. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, the Internet can help with that, too. Look at the copious "evidence" of chemtrails or reptilians or that AGW is a conspiracy for example.
The article explains in detail that correlation does not imply causation. But you're saying that correlation implies non-causation, which is even more incorrect. Correlation is evidence of causation of some sort. For example, it may be that technological advancements caused both the decline in piracy and global warming. Watercraft powered by fossil fuels led to a decline in sailing vessels, which could have caused a decline in piracy. And burning fossil fuels led to an increase in greenhouse gases which cause warming.
If you look at the latest IPCC report, I don't think you'll see a single instance of "we're all gonna die!" So nice strawman. You can see some of the highlights of the report here: http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/...
So you apparently have no problem with the government subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, or raising taxes to deal with the effects of global warming? As for the international authorities, I don't think that's an "obvious goal". For example, the US sanctions countries, without need for an international organization.
Yes, it will cost money to develop alternative energy sources. That doesn't mean there is some entity charging trillions of dollars. Yes, we have to agree and work together to reduce emissions. That doesn't mean there's an international authority that polices emissions.
Using electricity is not the problem. It's burning fossil fuels to produce electricity that is the problem. Since I am not in the business of building or managing power plants, I don't have a direct say in where my electricity comes from. However, I can elect officials who are committed to alternative energy sources. I vote for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Every climatologist I know of agrees we've caused a significant amount of warming. 98% of them agree we've caused most of the warming. The skeptics think that we've caused less than half, although a significant amount. It would help your case very much if you post some evidence to back up your claims. What climatologists are suggesting that we haven't caused a significant amount of warming?
The only thing I'm trying to get across to him is that it isn't up to anyone to convince him to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If he wants us not to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, HE has to convince THEM (governments worldwide) not to do it. That's what happened, for example, with CFCs and sulfur emissions decades ago -- governments agrees to cut emissions, and they did. We don't have to go around convincing the non-believers. Good thing, too.
You haven't been paying attention to the news at all, have you? Global warming is mentioned all the time, as is the widespread agreement to limit it by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by burning fewer fossil fuels.
I'm not trying to prove or convince you of anything. I'm just stating the facts. We (governments around the world) have agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions. If you think we shouldn't, you're the one that's going to have to do the convincing.
"We" is the human race. Where did I say anything about taxes or shutting up? Go scream your lungs out if it'll make you feel better. There's widespread agreement that we want to cut carbon dioxide emissions to limit the warming. But it's not up to you, nor to me for that matter. Don't act like we need to convince you first.
Who said anything about freaking out? All we need to do is get more energy from non-fossil fuel sources. It's mostly about building new electric power plants, so it's not like we need your permission anyway.
Considering that the climate varies according to natural variation such as solar output and volcanic eruptions, both of which we cannot predict, I don't think it's surprising that we can't predict climate exactly, especially over the short term. And just because we can't predict climate exactly doesn't mean the predictions are worthless. That's a false dichotomy.
I'd agree with you if it was just one study. But there have been hundreds of studies (starting in 1896), and they nearly all agree that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet by 2 degrees Celsius or more. And we've observed the temperature rise nearly 1 degree Celsius with a rise in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm, which appears to confirm those studies.
It's continued to warm and the ice has continued to melt at an accelerating rate. Isn't that what the models have predicted for decades?
Or depriving!
I read that as saying that it's often the right thing to do to break the law. On the other hand, you can't expect no legal consequences because you did the right thing.
You need to be very careful when doing security research. To expose a flaw in a security system, you often need to break the law, unless you have prior permission to expose flaws in a particular system. When I took Halderman's security class, he warned us that any student who broke the law would automatically get an F in his class.
I should have linked to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's way worse than that. There's a video of someone asking astronomy graduates from an Ivy League university what causes the phases of the moon and the seasons, and most cannot answer. What most people do is choose a belief, then actively look only for confirmation of that belief, even if it's an obviously lame excuse to desperately cling to that belief -- they act with willful ignorance. The Doobie brothers say it best -- see my signature.
Actually, the big bang theory simply says that the universe started in a hot, dense state and expanded into a cold, sparse state. It doesn't even try to explain how the universe came to be in that hot, dense state. It is similar to how evolution does not even try to explain how life started, just how species evolve once they exist.
But also there's lots of misinformation on the Internet. Some people go around looking for evidence to back up what they already believe, and they can often find a BS argument or just downright lies that support their beliefs. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, the Internet can help with that, too. Look at the copious "evidence" of chemtrails or reptilians or that AGW is a conspiracy for example.
Two words: false dichotomy. Notice the difference between "I don't believe in God," and "I believe there is no God."
The article explains in detail that correlation does not imply causation. But you're saying that correlation implies non-causation, which is even more incorrect. Correlation is evidence of causation of some sort. For example, it may be that technological advancements caused both the decline in piracy and global warming. Watercraft powered by fossil fuels led to a decline in sailing vessels, which could have caused a decline in piracy. And burning fossil fuels led to an increase in greenhouse gases which cause warming.
Exactly! Just like how we're all using IPv6 so we don't have to deal with a limit of 4 billion IP addresses. Oh wait.
If you look at the latest IPCC report, I don't think you'll see a single instance of "we're all gonna die!" So nice strawman. You can see some of the highlights of the report here: http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/...
So you apparently have no problem with the government subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, or raising taxes to deal with the effects of global warming? As for the international authorities, I don't think that's an "obvious goal". For example, the US sanctions countries, without need for an international organization.
Yes, it will cost money to develop alternative energy sources. That doesn't mean there is some entity charging trillions of dollars. Yes, we have to agree and work together to reduce emissions. That doesn't mean there's an international authority that polices emissions.
Could you clarify?
Where does this come from? I'm truly curious.
Using electricity is not the problem. It's burning fossil fuels to produce electricity that is the problem. Since I am not in the business of building or managing power plants, I don't have a direct say in where my electricity comes from. However, I can elect officials who are committed to alternative energy sources. I vote for them.