Religion is an offshoot of philosophy, not science. Science deals with tangibles, while philosophy speculates upon intangibles.
Just because the first scientists began as philosophers does not make it otherwise. Archimedes' Eureka Moment was a scientific realization, not a philosophical claim.
Religion was before philosophy was a discipline and all the founding philosophers denied the gods. I think it's more than a strain to put those too together. Religion deals with revelation and includes a philosophy of the world, but so does science include a philosophy of the world. If we exclude theologians, the vast majority of professional philosophers deal with history/science in their discipline.
"Religion was before philosophy was a discipline and all the founding philosophers denied the gods"
Um, that's not true at all. There are no 'founding philosophers', only ancient ones. Just because you could name some Greek atheists does not encapsulate the realm of ancient or even 'founding' philosophy.
"but so does science include a philosophy of the world."
No it doesn't; it describes and demonstrates reality with theories derived from exhaustative and replicable testing.
That's precisely why it's called science, and NOT philosophy. As I stated before: science deals with tangibles, philosophy with intangibles.
They two are not the same, and one certainly is not a branch of the other. That's like saying science is an offshoot of Christianity, because most fo our early scientists were Christian.
@Lodatzor Science doesn't equal philosophy, but Science is by no means independent from it's philosophical underpinnings that make it valid Science. If people didn't have debates about what counts as evidence, prediction, or falsification then you would just have a vague method that by merely chance might work if we guess what works. The idea of uniformitarianism is philosophy. Science isn't a philosophy, but the views to justify it as valid are.
His argument was probably ill thought out. the same thinking could argue for religion. "We have only one planet" could become "we have only one life". Pascal's wager which he has previously pointed out to be sleazy. A lapse, or a deference of a subject he has no interest in discussing?
@tuuvok Hitchen's "one planet" argument does not accurately resemble Pascal's Wager in that there is evidence that we are harming the environment; there is evidence that nuclear weapons can cause irreparable harm to the earth. However, there is no evidence that a Hell exists.
The planet isn't a trash can where you calculate costs and ignore the environmental impact of all the garbage which would be "cheaper" to just throw away. christmas254 What the hell are you talking about? So all of the climate scientists take private jets? You've been keeping track of that? Been counting cars and recording the models?
@TemplarThe2nd So where is all of this solar and hydrogen power in our country? All of the new technology in the world is worth nothing if we aren't willing to utilize it to solve the problems which face us. Imagine if we had all of the technology neccesary to solve all our problems but the people were simply unwilling to admit the problems existed.
So its hard to imagine the 95% of scientists who are in agreement would be the ones to get federal funding? You guys could care less about the truth. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts human induced global warming as a fact, and you point to the 5% who disagree as proof of a scam? Philosophy as absolute truth? Why don't all philosophers agree?
It is easy for a political to argue for global warming. Most politicians are lawyers and are trained to win an arguement once (you only have to convince a jury 1 time to win). Science has a higher standard--99.95% error. Experiments need to be conducted with 99.95% success rate.--by definition of proof--not my opinion. This has not been done in the case of global warming. I've moved on to a higher standard--Philosophy which absolute truth is the measure.
@philosophergenius Yeah that is true if 5% of Scientists disagree and the Scientists that do agree are getting lots of government funding (gettin paid) then its hard to call it a "Fact" like so many politically minded individuals do
@cjs2964 Asking whether philosophy is more "accurate" than science is missing the point altogether, or misunderstanding the difference between the two.
I've seen a lot of evidence that makes claims to global warming. None of it is scientific proof. I equate global warming to Y2K bug. If people believe in global warming there is a lot of money to be made. If no one belives in it, that is not profitable.
@philosophergenius Actually, if no one believes in it, it is very profitable for the huge oil companies who won't be taxed on their carbon emissions or made to change their way of doing business.
Please tell me there is someone else out there that is similar to Hitchens. Someone that can wade through all the bullshit, analyze, and explain things that are happening around the world to us logically.....using a large knowledge of history etc.... Is there anyone on his level around today that we can listen to?
Renewable, clean energy sources should be the top priority. We need to find a clean way to live here before any funding can go to the construction of an interstellar spaceship. For one thing, the technology really isn't there yet; faster-than-light travel speed and a renewable or highly efficient power source. If these are unattainable, it would instead have to be extremely durable and reliable, with facilities for generations upon generations of people to live for the journey.
@TheSonorama21 where do you think alternative energy sources like hydrogen and solar got their start? the space program
and while faster then light travel may be a long ways off, we still need to get the leg work done such as figuring out how to combat the negative effects of space travel while the passengers on en route, such as bone loss due to zero gravity
Fair enough, but we still need to sort out our earthly problems before heading into space. Even if a space program is the means to that end, I honestly doubt that we'll be settling planets before we clean up our own (contrary to what Newt Gingrich says he would have us do).
Whether or not artificial gravity is possible is yet to be confirmed, but you're right that long-term voyages will not work without some sort of way to counter all the problems that the passengers would face.
So with all of this science pointing to us shitting in the tub, not just your tub, mind you, but OUR tub, whose interests are guiding your decisions and whose interests are you ignoring? This isn't just about you. People take all kinds of chances in their own lives that can harm or even kill them. But what happens when its the lives of others that are at stake?
@kmeighoo The question comes back to, to whom are you responsible? Pascal put forth his ideas as an enticement for the individual to be reasonable and not reject the possibility of hell. Its a simple strategy to hedge your bets. But the whole scheme has one person in mind. And its important to note that he proposed this because of the fact that faith was divorced from any required evidence of proof. In effect his law said,"do yourself a favor", despite the facts.
@williamwallacefree Seriously, how do you enjoy being a cross dressing duck decoy? Why are you siting old papers by scientists who are re-educating the scientific world on the laws of physics? So one man says thousands of other scientists are wrong? Or am I interupting someone texting a friend?
@RoehmErnst Seriously, how do you enjoy being a nazi transvestite? They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a "closed" system while the planet works as an "open" system and the term "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.
@RoehmErnst how's it going, you nazi swine? Looks like I can post here. How are things?
In a recently revised and re-published paper Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC consensus atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics
@philosphergenius You went to college for 6 years and come up with, "if global warming was real, there would be no arguement"? i notice you and Fewsandpiper are having an arguement over your credentials as a scientist. So, your claim must therefore be a lie. You sound pretty dumb and ignorant regardless of your schooling. You are not questioning you are denying.
(Please read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Climate change brings alien species to Canada: Study
.
A newly published study says alien plants and animals are already invading Canada through doors opened by climate change -- and research and policy are lagging far behind.
@philosophergenius this and your last comment are incredibly ignorant. no one argues gravity because we understand it well and have had for a long time now. no one 'argues oxygen,' (whatever that means) because we have a good understanding of our atmosphere. when people propose these new ideas everyone gets defensive because their understanding of the world is being attacked. youre one of many morons who hold back our progression because youre head is too far up your own ass
@philosophergenius youre ignorant because you dont do anything with that questioning. you cant say 'oh i may be wrong;' thats useless. you say 'oh i may be wrong, but why, and what are the arguments against my belief?' and decide according to the facts, not what makes you feel good about yourself
and all you know is that you went to college for 6 years and the world was upside down when left? is your degree in sitting in your mothers basement all day?
@Fewsandpiper I could show you my degree I suppose, and W2. All I know is I go to college for 6 years to get an advance degree, come out and the world is upside down.
Where is the 'hole' in the ozone? Where is it located, prove it. Prove that hydroflorocarbons create an increase in global climate. Prove that this will have an adverse effect on humans. I am a scientist and I have not seen any evidence of such. This is nothing more than a political battle and cause for concern of the uneducated.
@MrCoffeeandWine No, and I will explain why. There is but one scenario of global warming, and the evidence uncovered by climatologists points towards the validity of the scenario.
However, there are many versions of the claim of an afterlife existing - even different versions within 1 religion - and the neurological and lack of supernatural evidence points to the validity of none of them.
oy the lives of billions of other people. He understood personal responsibility in terms of what we sought to create in the lives of others; now and into the future.
@kmeighoo Pascals wager is all about serving yourself and covering your own backside based on a possible threat to your being in the afterlife. Mr. Hitchens is speaking about our right to in effect threaten the well being of an entire planet based asserting your right not to give a damn about the lives of billions of others in the future. This is his same concern in rejecting religion, in that it encourages us to turn to imagined beings who promise personal salvation as part of a plan to destr
@healdogtoe2c None of that changes the fact that the argument made by Hitchens was the same one as used by Pascal. It is based on activating a latent fear of grave consequences for not acting in the pious way of the day.
As I said to RealRacer69, I do not think it was Hitchens's best argument, and I'm sure he would have conceded the point over a drink and vigorous conversation.
I prefer and choose to act as a responsible and honorable human being, even if there is no doomsday imminent.
He actually uses Pascal's wager, but credits The Fate of the Earth. Pascal said it is better to act as if there is a God, because we only have one chance/one soul. I am rather amazed that he didn't know that, or see the irony.
If Hitchens uses Pascal's argument for global warming, then he has undermined his atheist advocacy. He doesn't like God the tyrant, but can't disprove His existence, so he had better act as though He exists and submit accordingly, or else risk suffering in Hell!
@kmeighoo What upon the thousands of other gods, which would be the correct one? I believe that if one lives a good and honest life, any reasonable and just god would favour them in the afterlife. Prescribing to a religion that may be wrong could have a far worse impact on your time after death than simply remaining agnostic.
Anyway I'm sure Hitchens is well aware of Pascal's wager, but credited The fate of the Earth as that was his direct source for the idea related to this topic.
@RealRacer69 I don't accept Pascal's wager as a sufficient argument for being religious (by which he meant Christian, of course). I also don't think that argumentative structure is a good one to support action against global warming (which has since morphed to climate change).
I thought Hitchens would have been of the same mind. Apparently not. I think it was not his best argument, and he would probably have agreed upon reflection.
@kmeighoo I agree. I am by no means a climate change sceptic, but a much stronger argument than a variant of Pascal's wager is needed before you impose tremendous changes to peoples lives that would effect lifestyle, employment and liberties.
@RealRacer69 It does sort of sound like Pascal's wager but it is far from it. In order for it to be the same there must be good evidence for a fire and brimstone God and you are allowed to be a disingenuous believer.
What he is saying is he is humbly not a scientist and believes global warming is very probable, so it's better to be safe than sorry. I agree. I just think it will take radical changes in technology to really make any difference to slow global warming.
@RuinSonic But I'm really ignoring the real problem. Kids. Until our energy is completely green or we have less kids we are just fooling ourselves into thinking we are making a big difference. We aren't saving the planet either. We are saving our future.
@RuinSonic Why are these guys arguing with you using philosophy instead of science? The same people who would probably be praising Hitchens on any other video are bizarrely disconnected from what he is saying on global warming. I'm with you here 100%.
@squamish4244 I don't think philosophy is a bad thing after all Science depends on philosophy. You can do bad philosophy as well as bad science.
But that aside, I don't see why they should have a problem. Afterall, Hitchens admits he doesn't know a lot of the details of the science as most of us don't. But regardless of how immanent of a threat global warming is, we cannot convince everyone to give up their comfortable materialism and suddenly stop having cars, babies and so on.
@RuinSonic According to the actual experts, the threat is not only immanent, it is already happening. Regarding our lifestyle, it would not require us to revert back to a peasant existence or whatever, just one that would not require four earths to sustain if everyone lived like us. But it seems we can't even convince people with 2 SUVs to give up one, so...the 21st Century won't be boring, to say the least.
@squamish4244 I doubt that. As industry and our population grows increases in carbon and other green house gases are inevitable. That is unless we create more clean and efficient technology and get other countries on the same program. Seeing as how we our overpopulating and the greatest population is of fanatics, the earth getting 1 degree hotter in 150 years doesn't seem like the worst of our problems as much as that could potentially hurt us continuing in the next 200 years.
@RuinSonic Global warming could be the worst of our problems. It depends what happens. No-one is really sure what it'll do. If it devastated agriculture, the world would be in a food crisis. The best way of attacking this problem is to try to green the economy. Efficiency and green tech/energy is the way forward. Trying to curtail people's economic drive and ambition is a tough ask. Getting people to recycle and trying to find/construct clean energy sources is the best way forward.
@ummmerrrrummm For the most part, excluding things like pop cans, recycling actually costs more then just throwing stuff away. Plus the energy involved, say in gas electricity and running the production doesn't make it much of a save. For instance paper is wasted but is renewable as far as growing tress. Most common trash made up of plastic and styrofoam cost more to recycle then just to throw away.
I'm not trying to promote waste but to say it's not an effective solution.
@RuinSonic Recycling is a v important part of reducing emmisions going forwards. Even a small energy save makes it a net save. Any net save is a positive contribution to emmision reduction. The target should be to improve this net save year on year to make it more and more worthwhile to recycle.
Throwing stuff away, for the most part, is more costly, wasteful and produces more emmisions. Recycling is a good part of the solution. :)
@ummmerrrrummm This assumes that reducing emissions is a person's only goal, though, as opposed to one of many disperate objectives which need to be weighed against each other with every decision. If recycling is a more expensive process, or a corrupt business, or a personal waste of time, then a very slight difference in emissions is not enough to make for a net gain in human values.
@eggory It does depend on a person's/society's goal as you say. Such issues as GW and recycling are hugely complex.
The factors you mention are of definite consequence to the value of recycling as a course of action. In which case, what must be done is investigation, analysis and evaluation, which has been happening to some extent for many years. The problem with issues of GW are that they compete with many other societal interests, namely with economic growth and competitiveness.
The answer to that question is the true cost of throwing away things like plastic and styrofoam, because it has to be put into landfill. The 'cost' of recycling is far less in the long run, even though it takes more energy in the short term.
@Lodatzor I'd imagine driving a truck full of things like Styrofoam with the heat and electricity and people driving to work costs lots of non-renewable energy. I'm not buying the idea that a lot is saved in many recyclable products. I would like to know what specifically is efficient and earth saving to recycle other than what I see as the obvious: bottles/popcans.
@RuinSonic The impact of recycling on the environment is negligible. The big three are energy production, transportation, and building efficiency, precisely the areas where progress is amazingly slow, although the technology to change that already exists and has in most cases for decades.
@squamish4244 See I'm not a scientist and I feel like I must read a lot before I have a valid opinion, but It seems like people have cried wolf too many times in the past for me to be caught up with the alarmism of global warming. Don't get me wrong I'm not denying it's true, but could it be like the cold war or the Y2K where it looks like it could be serious and we find out it wasn't that bad?
@RuinSonic As someone who has studied this issue for 20 years I can say that unfortunately it is true. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Not one single reputable scientific body disputes that it is happening and that humans are very likely the cause of it. The only reason debate exists today is that the powerful fossil fuel lobby has flooded the public with junk science to confuse the issue and, failing that, make it appear as though the warming is part of a natural cycle.
@squamish4244 Disputing graphs and talking about climate gate is hardly criticizing the field of science. Isn't there still about 15% of scientists who deny man-made global warming?
@squamish4244 I'm not betting based on % of agreement. I'm all for realistic solutions, but with overpopulation and non-compliance of other nations namely China, our miniscule efforts would be in vane if this is not addressed. If it took 150 years for 1 degree change and the rate is the same it could have drastic effects in 300 years. However 300 years is a long time of more rogue countries going nuclear and overpopulation. We need to get our shit together before we save the world.
@RuinSonic It did take 150 years for 1 degree of change but the rate of change has increased dramatically since 1980. Current projections range anywhere from 3 to 8 degrees F in the next 100 years. The lower range would be tolerable, the higher range catastrophic, and most observed changes point towards the very highest end of the higher range. Climate change threatens to totally undermine all the progress we are making in other areas of human development worldwide.
@squamish4244 Are these guesses? I mean we haven't had much change in the last 10 years and your saying the rate is going to be 5 times faster than the average?
@RuinSonic We can also get our shit together and save the world at the same time. Thousands of jobs created by retrofitting homes and businesses to make them more energy-efficient. Building nuclear power plants (I'm pro-nuclear, I think the risks are vastly overstated; e.g. no one has ever even been injured from over 50 years of nuclear power in North America, yet there are an estimated 30,000 excess deaths a year from particulate matter from coal-fired power plants).
@squamish4244 Well I think this may boil down to a more underlying thing. Science literacy. If half of our politicians deny global warming and evolution that may be trouble for us.
@squamish4244 If we mistrust or are ignorant of science we won't be able to make proper decisions about policy as a nation and globally. Much of that roots from religion it seems.
@RuinSonic IMO, the fundamental problem is the human capacity to override reason with emotion. Many very intelligent people, atheists included, turn a blind eye to the mountains of evidence that our world is changing and what may happen to us, or be required of us to stop the worst from happening.
@squamish4244 I see many other problems including the fact that we aren't so free. We don't have a blank slate where we can put together reality as it is and we are rarely given enough information to make sense of it all. But without emotion how do you even value truth?
Nonetheless, I agree atheists are subject to the same problems theists fall prey to, religious thinking whether it's 9/11 truthers, the universe coming out of nothing or some objective system of ethics.
@RuinSonic "the universe coming out of nothing" I have never once heard an atheist or scientist ever claim the universe came out of nothing. It's a ridiculous and annoying strawman I've heard so many times. They may suggest the Big Bang, that at one point all matter and space was compressed into a singularity and expanded into the universe we now see, and that it's unknown what happened before that. But universe from nothing? Come on.
@zzyzx0788 Lawrence Krauss, Steven Hawkins. Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins seem to favor this view as well.
I am an atheist and I don't agree with them. But this isn't a straw man. It's surprising you would remain ignorant so long on this topic when so many have made this claimed and haven't backed down on meaning exactly what they said.
@squamish4244 "All these things cause the Father-General [of the Jesuits] to be feared by the Pope and sovereigns... A sovereign who is not their [the Jesuits'] friend will sooner or later experience their vengeance." (1852)
Luigi Desanctis (Official Censor of the Inquisition)
@squamish4244 ...Wherever a totalitarian movement erupts, whether Communist or Nazi, a Jesuit can be found in the role of 'advisor' or leader; in [Communist] Cuba Fr. Armando Llorente and in Argentina the neo-Nazis are led by Fr. Menvieille."
@squamish4244 "[Jesuit-trained Illuminist Adam] Weishaupt's success in forcing the Vatican to reestablish the abolished Jesuit Order [Ed. Note: it had been abolished in 1773 by Pope Clement XIV], through revival of the Church's original Nazarene Communism in the form of present-day Communism, led to the conspiracy's control by the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuits]...
@RuinSonic Instead of letting India and China fly past us in the area of alternative energy, and taking those jobs, we need to get onboard with that ourselves. They are terrible polluters, but their numbers are so huge that if they even devote 5% of their funds to alternative energy sources we will be left in the dust.
@RuinSonic The only reason the Cold War didn't turn into a civilization-ending disaster is because nobody pushed the button, but it came very close several times. Y2K was indeed just stupid alarmism. Also, back in the 1970's there was a 'global cooling' scare, but that was when climate models were much less advanced than they are now. So that has also caused confusion among people.
@kmeighoo It's not pascal's wager. He's assuming global warming is very probable and that we can prevent it. God isn't probable, at least a fire and brimstone one, and a divine judge is not fooled by pretending to be a genuine follower.
Instead of arguing for policy that doesn't stop global warming and hurts the economy, we need to invest in more efficient and green technology that costs less energy and also helps the economy. Forget the other bullshit.
@RoehmErnst apologize for the moron blast, but GW is a ruse.
.take the following problem to any high school or college physics or chemistry student and have them do the math on the following.Calculate the joule heating of the atmosphere created by one gallon of gasoline as it is burned today in a car. ALL of this energy turns into heat and is pumped directly into the atmosphere RIGHT NOW.
@annanownow I'm not quite sure I follow. This means..? The amount of heat generated directly (as you describe, so not counting secondary effects like enhanced greenhouse effect) by burning fossil fuels is tiny compared to the energy of the sun reaching the Earth. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
@annanownow "Calculate the joule heating of the atmosphere created by one gallon of gasoline as it is burned today in a car".
What is your point? Man-made global warming is not caused by the waste heat from engines. It's caused by changes in the properties of the atmosphere due to increased levels of gases like CO2 and methane that absorb radiation coming back from the Earth's surface and re-radiate it in random directions (as opposed to allowing that radiation to escape directly to space).
@guitarpedant pt.2: Then calculate the amount of CO2 created by this burning and estimate the alleged greenhouse heating that will supposedly occur in 10 years from now. You will find that the immediate input of heat energy from burning the fuel is thousands of times greater than any alleged greenhouse effect.
@annanownow The energy reaching the earth's surface from the sun is about 100,000 TW. That's roughly 10,000 times our current energy usage. As much solar energy reaches Earth in one hour as we consume in a year! How exactly is heating from burning fuels going to be THOUSANDS of times greater than heating from an enhanced greenhouse effect in that case? I suspect you got your maths wrong somewhere, probably by a factor of between 10,000 and 100,000.
@guitarpedant well the CO2 "heat" created by burning one gallon of gasoline is less than the joule heating that immediately enters the atmosphere from burning one gallon of gasoline. Another example is that nuclear power plants create enormous amounts of energy that enter the atmosphere.
This calculation comes from Prof.James McCanney whose book "Principia Meterologia" is the seminal treatise for attempting to grasp the multitude of factors influencing weather conditions.
people treated him like he was an expert on every subject he spoke, he wasnt. in fact on some subjects he spoke utter shite. one of which is his admiration for scum like tony blair, and his support for tony blair invasion and subsequent murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children. plus his selective recall on the reason airstrip one (britain) followed the USA into iraq.
@MilessGloriosus - "Where's the numerical data for droughts and floods?"
I already linked it earlier. It's time for you to start paying attention. I'm not re-posting any more links until you start holding up your end of the burden of proof. You claimed that CO2 has no significant effect on global temp (essentially saying the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist), you claimed that global temp has increased 1 degree or more an atmospheric CO2 rose more than 200% in a few centuries before, link it.
"A majority of experts" is not now, and has never been the hallmark of "science". Science does NOT work by "trusting the majority of experts" but instead works by evidence and data, challengable by peer review, and demonstrable by experimental reproducibility. On both scales, the AGW alamism fails miserably. Educate yourself: c3headlines . com / greehouse-gases-atmosphereco2methanewater-vapor /
The majority of experts (over 95% of environmental scientists) believe that global warming is happening and is caused by man. Unless you have a degree and can prove to them that they are all wrong, I win the argument on global warming by saying that they are right. Science works by trusting the majority of experts and if new data comes out saying they were wrong, then they adjust. The only reason why there is a controversy is because of misinformation from oil companies and their politicians
No, science does not work by adhering to a majority vote. You just killed your own argument by failing to follow the scientific standard that you yourself uphold. Please do not debate like that, you'll end up embarrassing yourself.
Nonetheless, it is real and probably is largely contributed by human acts. You won't find anyone in their right mind saying otherwise. There is however a debate over how much of an issue it will create, and therefore a debate about prioritizing it.
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Actually science works through the peer reviewed process and scientific viewpoints/theories are solidified once a majority of credible scientists agree on said viewpoint. My point is that if you want to debate it or try to find out more about it, go get a degree in the field and get involved in the peer reviewed process. Until then, you are a charlatan and you are as dangerous to knowledge as a non-doctor giving medical advice to a sick person.
@MicksKicks1 Conspiracy theorists are also damaging the consensus and delaying action(It seems to be having some effect also, for example, the majority of the population in the UK believe global warming isn't real, or at least, not caused by humans), they claim global warming is a fairy tale, initiated by secretive shadowy powers behind the scenes, pushing global warming as a means of imposing carbon taxes, other regulations, and for draconian societal control.
That fact is, that Hitch was a whore that sold garbage to the highest bidder, and the rag he worked for is amongst the most right-wing garbage published in the US.
Now watch:"Christopher Hitchens - It Was Right to Invade "
@A86 We're back where we started - Your claim: "it's the average of how many significant events happen per year or per decade over time." Okay. Show the DATA from a reputable source that covers more than a single area or a few short decades of time.
@A86 I never claimed IPCC was disreputable, just that they didn't give the DATA you promised (drought and flood increases). RE: climate stability in the last 20 million years - look up "Ice Ages". I'm not denying the greenhouse effect - but it's mainly methane and water vapor (CO2 is a trivial contributor). For only one CO2/temp correlation example, try w w w (.) paulmacrae (.) com (/?) p = 29 . But you STILL haven't provided any DATA for your first assertion (drought and flood increases).
@MilessGloriosus - "RE: climate stability in the last 20 million years - look up "Ice Ages"
What about them? What do they have to do with current climate change and in which Ice Age did atmospheric CO2 concentration rise or drop over 100ppm in a few hundred years? Answer: None of them. Ice Ages take place over tens of thousands of years and are usually a result of the Milankovitch Cycle. Which takes place over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.
@MilessGloriosus - "I'm not denying the greenhouse effect - but it's mainly methane and water vapor (CO2 is a trivial contributor)"
CO2 has far less radiative forcing effect than methane and water vapor but it's not a "trivial contributor" because CO2 is far more voluminous in the Earth's atmosphere than methane (even though methane traps about 8 times as much heat). Water vapor is intricately linked with CO2 levels because more CO2 causes more heat and thus more evaporation (and water vapor).
@MilessGloriosus - Though water vapor in the form of clouds can have negative radiative forcing because increased cloud cover can lower global temperatures. However, much of the increased recent water vapor isn't turning into clouds.
"you STILL haven't provided any DATA for your first assertion"
Re-read those sections I mentioned from the link. If for whatever reason you still don't think it's enough data I can provide other sources.
@A86 Your references only gave verbal assertions of increases in droughts and floods. But still no DATA was provided. As far as ice ages developing over hundreds of years - that's unproven, and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths. But the main point is that the assertion that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture. We've seen some minor temperature fluctuations, but they're likely unrelated to CO2.
@MilessGloriosus - "and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths"
What does development of sudden ice storms have to do with GLOBAL TEMPERATURE or atmospheric CO2 concentrations? The fact that ice storms can occur quickly does not show that the global temperature increased or decreased over 1 degree in a few hundred years, or that atmospheric CO2 dropped or rose more than 200% in a few hundred years.
@MilessGloriosus - "that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture"
Again, you're essentially denying the Greenhouse Effect by saying CO2 would somehow magically not affect atmospheric temperature (the only way it wouldn't is if the Greenhouse Effect does not exist). It's consistently shown to affect atmospheric temperature on small scale and large scale. Look at a graph of global temperature over the past 150 years and look at CO2 concentration over the same time.
@MilessGloriosus - Denying the Greenhouse Effect is about like denying the Law of Gravity. That's certainly not going to help garner any credibility for your argument.
"but they're likely unrelated to CO2"
According to whom? Not only is the consistent temperature increase not a "minor fluctuation" what would magically be causing temperature to rise if not CO2? There has not been enough of a rise in methane to cause most of it and it's not the Sun causing it either.
@A86 Still no DATA for a real increase in frequency of Droughts and Floods. The skepticalscience link was interesting, but a quick review of the comments revealed the weakness of their argument – they biased the stats where they could by assuming localization (using normal temps for locations with no records). The IPCC link provides some other data, but does not show a statistically significant increase in Droughts and Floods occurring now.
@A86 Strawman alert again – I have not denied the greenhouse effect. But you deny the science by refusing to recognize that CO2 is orders of magnitude less effective than water vapor or methane. AGW proponents just can’t accept the possibility that a correlated increase in CO2 and a minor temperature increase (within normal variation) might not actually have a causal relationship. Educate yourself: c3headlines . com / greehouse-gases-atmosphereco2methanewater-vapor /
Yes, you did. You said, "But the main point is that the assertion that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture" That's essentially denying the Greenhouse Effect since you're claiming increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration have no effect on temperature. That would require that there be no Greenhouse Effect for CO2 to have no effect on global temperature.
@MilessGloriosus - "you deny the science by refusing to recognize that CO2 is orders of magnitude less effective than water vapor or methane"
Did you even read my comments? I plainly said: "CO2 has far less radiative forcing effect than methane and water vapor but it's not a "trivial contributor" because CO2 is far more voluminous in the Earth's atmosphere than methane (even though methane traps about 8 times as much heat)." CO2 has less radiative forcing but there's FAR more of it around.
@MilessGloriosus - Aside from the link you provided being a source with an ideological slant (it plainly states it's a politically conservative source and the writing style shows it's obviously a blog by an individual who is most likely not a climatologist) its "argument" is that the Earth is cooling because some GHG aerosols (such as methane) are decreasing in the rate they're being pumped into the atmosphere. It's patently false because all data shows a continuing increase in global temp.
@MilessGloriosus - The website even clumsily links a NASA article which claims that certain aerosols have dropped in the atmosphere without reading the article which states those aerosols are ones with NEGATIVE radiative forcing (meaning they cool the planet):
(.) nasa (.) gov / centers / goddard / news / topstory / 2007 / aerosol _ dimming (.) html
It's saying the Earth will continue to get hotter due to less aerosols to help cool the Earth down. The exact opposite of what the website argues.
@A86 A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event - covering a significant area (Siberia & N America). We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year. It strains credulity to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts at the same time, almost certainly exceeding 1C. Our current temp shifts are not abnormal.
@MilessGloriosus - The NASA article blatantly says, "Sun-blocking aerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates. The decline appears to have brought an end to the "global dimming" earlier in the century. Credit: Michael Mishchenko, NASA" and starts off saying, "an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases...appears to have lost ground. "
@MilessGloriosus - "A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event"
What is this "sudden ice storm" you're referring to and when did GLOBAL TEMPERATURE drop 1 degree or more and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise or fall more than 100ppm in a few hundred years during this time?
@MilessGloriosus - "We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year"
And what year is this supposedly? Since we can reconstruct global temperatures for many other years I'm betting you're incorrect.
"to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts" No, it doesn't. The "Little Ice Age" Period from 1400-1850 was largely a local phenomenon. It didn't affect the entire planet even though it was significant for parts of the Northern Hemisphere.
@A86 You described “climate stability” during the last 20M years and chaffed at my reminder of Ice Ages, claiming they were unimportant. That’s a hoot. Ice core temperature reconstruction methodology is not precise enough to accurately identify global temperature changes over periods less than a few centuries. So your challenge to show another century when temps increased by 1C and CO2 increased by 100ppm is silly. The burden of proof that something has actually changed thus falls back to you.
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This clip is simple but its message is deep and it might make you think. Or not. Either way take care of yourself
/watch?v=s_VSRH5_KJ4&feature=channel_video_title
TruthWithinRange 2 days ago
Science is an offshoot of philosophy. All of the first scientist were philosophers.
philosophergenius 1 week ago
@philosophergenius
Religion is an offshoot of philosophy, not science. Science deals with tangibles, while philosophy speculates upon intangibles.
Just because the first scientists began as philosophers does not make it otherwise. Archimedes' Eureka Moment was a scientific realization, not a philosophical claim.
Lodatzor 4 days ago
@Lodatzor "Religion is an offshoot of philosophy"
Religion was before philosophy was a discipline and all the founding philosophers denied the gods. I think it's more than a strain to put those too together. Religion deals with revelation and includes a philosophy of the world, but so does science include a philosophy of the world. If we exclude theologians, the vast majority of professional philosophers deal with history/science in their discipline.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RuinSonic
"Religion was before philosophy was a discipline and all the founding philosophers denied the gods"
Um, that's not true at all. There are no 'founding philosophers', only ancient ones. Just because you could name some Greek atheists does not encapsulate the realm of ancient or even 'founding' philosophy.
"but so does science include a philosophy of the world."
No it doesn't; it describes and demonstrates reality with theories derived from exhaustative and replicable testing.
Lodatzor 3 days ago
That's precisely why it's called science, and NOT philosophy. As I stated before: science deals with tangibles, philosophy with intangibles.
They two are not the same, and one certainly is not a branch of the other. That's like saying science is an offshoot of Christianity, because most fo our early scientists were Christian.
Think about these things.
Lodatzor 3 days ago
@Lodatzor Science doesn't equal philosophy, but Science is by no means independent from it's philosophical underpinnings that make it valid Science. If people didn't have debates about what counts as evidence, prediction, or falsification then you would just have a vague method that by merely chance might work if we guess what works. The idea of uniformitarianism is philosophy. Science isn't a philosophy, but the views to justify it as valid are.
RuinSonic 3 days ago
His argument was probably ill thought out. the same thinking could argue for religion. "We have only one planet" could become "we have only one life". Pascal's wager which he has previously pointed out to be sleazy. A lapse, or a deference of a subject he has no interest in discussing?
tuuvok 1 week ago
@tuuvok Hitchen's "one planet" argument does not accurately resemble Pascal's Wager in that there is evidence that we are harming the environment; there is evidence that nuclear weapons can cause irreparable harm to the earth. However, there is no evidence that a Hell exists.
AmericanSk3ptic 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people want young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very small sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “awhitesoul2012” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
Thanks.
awhitesoul2012 1 week ago
The planet isn't a trash can where you calculate costs and ignore the environmental impact of all the garbage which would be "cheaper" to just throw away. christmas254 What the hell are you talking about? So all of the climate scientists take private jets? You've been keeping track of that? Been counting cars and recording the models?
healdogtoe2c 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I notice the people talking all take private jets Limo's big house's own 3+ cars (big ) an you dummies pay to listen to them
christmas254 1 week ago
Comment removed
christmas254 1 week ago
The person asking the question clearly misunderstood Mr. Hitchens.
spinalcrackerbox 2 weeks ago
@TemplarThe2nd So where is all of this solar and hydrogen power in our country? All of the new technology in the world is worth nothing if we aren't willing to utilize it to solve the problems which face us. Imagine if we had all of the technology neccesary to solve all our problems but the people were simply unwilling to admit the problems existed.
healdogtoe2c 2 weeks ago
So its hard to imagine the 95% of scientists who are in agreement would be the ones to get federal funding? You guys could care less about the truth. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts human induced global warming as a fact, and you point to the 5% who disagree as proof of a scam? Philosophy as absolute truth? Why don't all philosophers agree?
healdogtoe2c 3 weeks ago
It is easy for a political to argue for global warming. Most politicians are lawyers and are trained to win an arguement once (you only have to convince a jury 1 time to win). Science has a higher standard--99.95% error. Experiments need to be conducted with 99.95% success rate.--by definition of proof--not my opinion. This has not been done in the case of global warming. I've moved on to a higher standard--Philosophy which absolute truth is the measure.
philosophergenius 3 weeks ago
@philosophergenius Yeah that is true if 5% of Scientists disagree and the Scientists that do agree are getting lots of government funding (gettin paid) then its hard to call it a "Fact" like so many politically minded individuals do
Jamespot24 3 weeks ago
@philosophergenius You think philoshpy is more accurate than science? That is absolutely hilarious.
cjs2964 1 week ago
@cjs2964 Asking whether philosophy is more "accurate" than science is missing the point altogether, or misunderstanding the difference between the two.
1pmcneil 1 week ago
I've seen a lot of evidence that makes claims to global warming. None of it is scientific proof. I equate global warming to Y2K bug. If people believe in global warming there is a lot of money to be made. If no one belives in it, that is not profitable.
philosophergenius 3 weeks ago
@philosophergenius Actually, if no one believes in it, it is very profitable for the huge oil companies who won't be taxed on their carbon emissions or made to change their way of doing business.
squamish4244 1 week ago
Please tell me there is someone else out there that is similar to Hitchens. Someone that can wade through all the bullshit, analyze, and explain things that are happening around the world to us logically.....using a large knowledge of history etc.... Is there anyone on his level around today that we can listen to?
SaltedSlug85 3 weeks ago
@SaltedSlug85
Sam Harris in 10 years.
TheSonorama21 3 weeks ago
so the just in case argument? i could see that. he has a point.
crazedmartinez 3 weeks ago
here's an idea, stop bitching about Global warming and start investing in a space program so we reduce the demand for resources on this planet C__C
TemplarThe2nd 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheSonorama21 3 weeks ago
@TemplarThe2nd
Renewable, clean energy sources should be the top priority. We need to find a clean way to live here before any funding can go to the construction of an interstellar spaceship. For one thing, the technology really isn't there yet; faster-than-light travel speed and a renewable or highly efficient power source. If these are unattainable, it would instead have to be extremely durable and reliable, with facilities for generations upon generations of people to live for the journey.
TheSonorama21 3 weeks ago
@TheSonorama21 where do you think alternative energy sources like hydrogen and solar got their start? the space program
and while faster then light travel may be a long ways off, we still need to get the leg work done such as figuring out how to combat the negative effects of space travel while the passengers on en route, such as bone loss due to zero gravity
TemplarThe2nd 3 weeks ago
@TemplarThe2nd
Fair enough, but we still need to sort out our earthly problems before heading into space. Even if a space program is the means to that end, I honestly doubt that we'll be settling planets before we clean up our own (contrary to what Newt Gingrich says he would have us do).
Whether or not artificial gravity is possible is yet to be confirmed, but you're right that long-term voyages will not work without some sort of way to counter all the problems that the passengers would face.
TheSonorama21 2 weeks ago
So with all of this science pointing to us shitting in the tub, not just your tub, mind you, but OUR tub, whose interests are guiding your decisions and whose interests are you ignoring? This isn't just about you. People take all kinds of chances in their own lives that can harm or even kill them. But what happens when its the lives of others that are at stake?
healdogtoe2c 3 weeks ago
@kmeighoo The question comes back to, to whom are you responsible? Pascal put forth his ideas as an enticement for the individual to be reasonable and not reject the possibility of hell. Its a simple strategy to hedge your bets. But the whole scheme has one person in mind. And its important to note that he proposed this because of the fact that faith was divorced from any required evidence of proof. In effect his law said,"do yourself a favor", despite the facts.
healdogtoe2c 3 weeks ago
@williamwallacefree Seriously, how do you enjoy being a cross dressing duck decoy? Why are you siting old papers by scientists who are re-educating the scientific world on the laws of physics? So one man says thousands of other scientists are wrong? Or am I interupting someone texting a friend?
healdogtoe2c 3 weeks ago
@RoehmErnst Seriously, how do you enjoy being a nazi transvestite? They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a "closed" system while the planet works as an "open" system and the term "atmospheric greenhouse effect" does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.
williamwallacefree 3 weeks ago
@RoehmErnst how's it going, you nazi swine? Looks like I can post here. How are things?
In a recently revised and re-published paper Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC consensus atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics
williamwallacefree 3 weeks ago
@philosphergenius You went to college for 6 years and come up with, "if global warming was real, there would be no arguement"? i notice you and Fewsandpiper are having an arguement over your credentials as a scientist. So, your claim must therefore be a lie. You sound pretty dumb and ignorant regardless of your schooling. You are not questioning you are denying.
healdogtoe2c 3 weeks ago
Evidence/impacts of climate change series...
(Please read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Climate change brings alien species to Canada: Study
.
A newly published study says alien plants and animals are already invading Canada through doors opened by climate change -- and research and policy are lagging far behind.
.
Canadian Press
20 January 2012
Nightversionn 3 weeks ago
Nobody argues gravity, no one argues oxygen. If global warming was real, there would be no arguement.
philosophergenius 4 weeks ago
@philosophergenius this and your last comment are incredibly ignorant. no one argues gravity because we understand it well and have had for a long time now. no one 'argues oxygen,' (whatever that means) because we have a good understanding of our atmosphere. when people propose these new ideas everyone gets defensive because their understanding of the world is being attacked. youre one of many morons who hold back our progression because youre head is too far up your own ass
Fewsandpiper 4 weeks ago
@Fewsandpiper I question something that is against what I believe to be true. If I don't question it, then that would make me ignorant.
philosophergenius 3 weeks ago
@philosophergenius youre ignorant because you dont do anything with that questioning. you cant say 'oh i may be wrong;' thats useless. you say 'oh i may be wrong, but why, and what are the arguments against my belief?' and decide according to the facts, not what makes you feel good about yourself
and all you know is that you went to college for 6 years and the world was upside down when left? is your degree in sitting in your mothers basement all day?
show some effort please
Fewsandpiper 3 weeks ago
@philosophergenius and hey while youre at it, prove to me that youre a scientist
Fewsandpiper 4 weeks ago
@Fewsandpiper I could show you my degree I suppose, and W2. All I know is I go to college for 6 years to get an advance degree, come out and the world is upside down.
philosophergenius 3 weeks ago
@philosophergenius The great thing about science is that it's real, whether you believe in it or not.
Nightversionn 3 weeks ago
Where is the 'hole' in the ozone? Where is it located, prove it. Prove that hydroflorocarbons create an increase in global climate. Prove that this will have an adverse effect on humans. I am a scientist and I have not seen any evidence of such. This is nothing more than a political battle and cause for concern of the uneducated.
philosophergenius 4 weeks ago
'Global Warming' is really not a good way of describing it, Climate Change fits better.
billybobjoeftw 4 weeks ago
One of the world's few intellectuals......HITCH...
lifeschild1 4 weeks ago
Brilliant man.
Prufrockseven 4 weeks ago
Hitch - that's Pascal's Wager, and you would have demounced it had you recognized it.
MrCoffeeandWine 4 weeks ago
@MrCoffeeandWine No, and I will explain why. There is but one scenario of global warming, and the evidence uncovered by climatologists points towards the validity of the scenario.
However, there are many versions of the claim of an afterlife existing - even different versions within 1 religion - and the neurological and lack of supernatural evidence points to the validity of none of them.
Nidair 4 weeks ago
oy the lives of billions of other people. He understood personal responsibility in terms of what we sought to create in the lives of others; now and into the future.
healdogtoe2c 1 month ago
@kmeighoo Pascals wager is all about serving yourself and covering your own backside based on a possible threat to your being in the afterlife. Mr. Hitchens is speaking about our right to in effect threaten the well being of an entire planet based asserting your right not to give a damn about the lives of billions of others in the future. This is his same concern in rejecting religion, in that it encourages us to turn to imagined beings who promise personal salvation as part of a plan to destr
healdogtoe2c 1 month ago
@healdogtoe2c None of that changes the fact that the argument made by Hitchens was the same one as used by Pascal. It is based on activating a latent fear of grave consequences for not acting in the pious way of the day.
As I said to RealRacer69, I do not think it was Hitchens's best argument, and I'm sure he would have conceded the point over a drink and vigorous conversation.
I prefer and choose to act as a responsible and honorable human being, even if there is no doomsday imminent.
kmeighoo 3 weeks ago
He actually uses Pascal's wager, but credits The Fate of the Earth. Pascal said it is better to act as if there is a God, because we only have one chance/one soul. I am rather amazed that he didn't know that, or see the irony.
If Hitchens uses Pascal's argument for global warming, then he has undermined his atheist advocacy. He doesn't like God the tyrant, but can't disprove His existence, so he had better act as though He exists and submit accordingly, or else risk suffering in Hell!
kmeighoo 1 month ago
@kmeighoo What upon the thousands of other gods, which would be the correct one? I believe that if one lives a good and honest life, any reasonable and just god would favour them in the afterlife. Prescribing to a religion that may be wrong could have a far worse impact on your time after death than simply remaining agnostic.
Anyway I'm sure Hitchens is well aware of Pascal's wager, but credited The fate of the Earth as that was his direct source for the idea related to this topic.
RealRacer69 1 month ago
@RealRacer69 I don't accept Pascal's wager as a sufficient argument for being religious (by which he meant Christian, of course). I also don't think that argumentative structure is a good one to support action against global warming (which has since morphed to climate change).
I thought Hitchens would have been of the same mind. Apparently not. I think it was not his best argument, and he would probably have agreed upon reflection.
kmeighoo 3 weeks ago
@kmeighoo I agree. I am by no means a climate change sceptic, but a much stronger argument than a variant of Pascal's wager is needed before you impose tremendous changes to peoples lives that would effect lifestyle, employment and liberties.
RealRacer69 3 weeks ago
@RealRacer69 It does sort of sound like Pascal's wager but it is far from it. In order for it to be the same there must be good evidence for a fire and brimstone God and you are allowed to be a disingenuous believer.
What he is saying is he is humbly not a scientist and believes global warming is very probable, so it's better to be safe than sorry. I agree. I just think it will take radical changes in technology to really make any difference to slow global warming.
RuinSonic 3 weeks ago
@RuinSonic But I'm really ignoring the real problem. Kids. Until our energy is completely green or we have less kids we are just fooling ourselves into thinking we are making a big difference. We aren't saving the planet either. We are saving our future.
RuinSonic 3 weeks ago
@RuinSonic Why are these guys arguing with you using philosophy instead of science? The same people who would probably be praising Hitchens on any other video are bizarrely disconnected from what he is saying on global warming. I'm with you here 100%.
squamish4244 1 week ago
@squamish4244 I don't think philosophy is a bad thing after all Science depends on philosophy. You can do bad philosophy as well as bad science.
But that aside, I don't see why they should have a problem. Afterall, Hitchens admits he doesn't know a lot of the details of the science as most of us don't. But regardless of how immanent of a threat global warming is, we cannot convince everyone to give up their comfortable materialism and suddenly stop having cars, babies and so on.
RuinSonic 1 week ago
@RuinSonic According to the actual experts, the threat is not only immanent, it is already happening. Regarding our lifestyle, it would not require us to revert back to a peasant existence or whatever, just one that would not require four earths to sustain if everyone lived like us. But it seems we can't even convince people with 2 SUVs to give up one, so...the 21st Century won't be boring, to say the least.
squamish4244 1 week ago
@squamish4244 I doubt that. As industry and our population grows increases in carbon and other green house gases are inevitable. That is unless we create more clean and efficient technology and get other countries on the same program. Seeing as how we our overpopulating and the greatest population is of fanatics, the earth getting 1 degree hotter in 150 years doesn't seem like the worst of our problems as much as that could potentially hurt us continuing in the next 200 years.
RuinSonic 1 week ago
@RuinSonic Global warming could be the worst of our problems. It depends what happens. No-one is really sure what it'll do. If it devastated agriculture, the world would be in a food crisis. The best way of attacking this problem is to try to green the economy. Efficiency and green tech/energy is the way forward. Trying to curtail people's economic drive and ambition is a tough ask. Getting people to recycle and trying to find/construct clean energy sources is the best way forward.
ummmerrrrummm 1 week ago
@ummmerrrrummm For the most part, excluding things like pop cans, recycling actually costs more then just throwing stuff away. Plus the energy involved, say in gas electricity and running the production doesn't make it much of a save. For instance paper is wasted but is renewable as far as growing tress. Most common trash made up of plastic and styrofoam cost more to recycle then just to throw away.
I'm not trying to promote waste but to say it's not an effective solution.
RuinSonic 1 week ago
@RuinSonic Recycling is a v important part of reducing emmisions going forwards. Even a small energy save makes it a net save. Any net save is a positive contribution to emmision reduction. The target should be to improve this net save year on year to make it more and more worthwhile to recycle.
Throwing stuff away, for the most part, is more costly, wasteful and produces more emmisions. Recycling is a good part of the solution. :)
ummmerrrrummm 1 week ago
@ummmerrrrummm This assumes that reducing emissions is a person's only goal, though, as opposed to one of many disperate objectives which need to be weighed against each other with every decision. If recycling is a more expensive process, or a corrupt business, or a personal waste of time, then a very slight difference in emissions is not enough to make for a net gain in human values.
eggory 1 week ago
@eggory It does depend on a person's/society's goal as you say. Such issues as GW and recycling are hugely complex.
The factors you mention are of definite consequence to the value of recycling as a course of action. In which case, what must be done is investigation, analysis and evaluation, which has been happening to some extent for many years. The problem with issues of GW are that they compete with many other societal interests, namely with economic growth and competitiveness.
ummmerrrrummm 1 week ago
@RuinSonic
What's the price of land, these days?
The answer to that question is the true cost of throwing away things like plastic and styrofoam, because it has to be put into landfill. The 'cost' of recycling is far less in the long run, even though it takes more energy in the short term.
Lodatzor 4 days ago
@Lodatzor I'd imagine driving a truck full of things like Styrofoam with the heat and electricity and people driving to work costs lots of non-renewable energy. I'm not buying the idea that a lot is saved in many recyclable products. I would like to know what specifically is efficient and earth saving to recycle other than what I see as the obvious: bottles/popcans.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@RuinSonic The impact of recycling on the environment is negligible. The big three are energy production, transportation, and building efficiency, precisely the areas where progress is amazingly slow, although the technology to change that already exists and has in most cases for decades.
squamish4244 4 days ago
@squamish4244 See I'm not a scientist and I feel like I must read a lot before I have a valid opinion, but It seems like people have cried wolf too many times in the past for me to be caught up with the alarmism of global warming. Don't get me wrong I'm not denying it's true, but could it be like the cold war or the Y2K where it looks like it could be serious and we find out it wasn't that bad?
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@RuinSonic I mean there was definitely things we did in both cases, but it could have turned out so much worse in theory.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@RuinSonic As someone who has studied this issue for 20 years I can say that unfortunately it is true. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. Not one single reputable scientific body disputes that it is happening and that humans are very likely the cause of it. The only reason debate exists today is that the powerful fossil fuel lobby has flooded the public with junk science to confuse the issue and, failing that, make it appear as though the warming is part of a natural cycle.
squamish4244 4 days ago
@squamish4244 It's not junk science it's no science. At least Creationists are actually trying to talk about science that we aren't being taught.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@squamish4244 Disputing graphs and talking about climate gate is hardly criticizing the field of science. Isn't there still about 15% of scientists who deny man-made global warming?
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@RuinSonic Or laughing about climate scientists because we are getting more precipitation in the winter. Silly scientists hahaha.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@RuinSonic Are you willing to bet humanity's future on that 15%? As Hitchens says, we are conducting an experiment we can't reverse if it's true.
squamish4244 4 days ago
@squamish4244 I'm not betting based on % of agreement. I'm all for realistic solutions, but with overpopulation and non-compliance of other nations namely China, our miniscule efforts would be in vane if this is not addressed. If it took 150 years for 1 degree change and the rate is the same it could have drastic effects in 300 years. However 300 years is a long time of more rogue countries going nuclear and overpopulation. We need to get our shit together before we save the world.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@RuinSonic It did take 150 years for 1 degree of change but the rate of change has increased dramatically since 1980. Current projections range anywhere from 3 to 8 degrees F in the next 100 years. The lower range would be tolerable, the higher range catastrophic, and most observed changes point towards the very highest end of the higher range. Climate change threatens to totally undermine all the progress we are making in other areas of human development worldwide.
squamish4244 3 days ago
@squamish4244 Are these guesses? I mean we haven't had much change in the last 10 years and your saying the rate is going to be 5 times faster than the average?
RuinSonic 3 days ago
@RuinSonic We can also get our shit together and save the world at the same time. Thousands of jobs created by retrofitting homes and businesses to make them more energy-efficient. Building nuclear power plants (I'm pro-nuclear, I think the risks are vastly overstated; e.g. no one has ever even been injured from over 50 years of nuclear power in North America, yet there are an estimated 30,000 excess deaths a year from particulate matter from coal-fired power plants).
squamish4244 3 days ago
@squamish4244 Well I think this may boil down to a more underlying thing. Science literacy. If half of our politicians deny global warming and evolution that may be trouble for us.
RuinSonic 3 days ago
@RuinSonic Indeed. Science literacy is key.
squamish4244 3 days ago
@squamish4244 If we mistrust or are ignorant of science we won't be able to make proper decisions about policy as a nation and globally. Much of that roots from religion it seems.
RuinSonic 3 days ago
@RuinSonic IMO, the fundamental problem is the human capacity to override reason with emotion. Many very intelligent people, atheists included, turn a blind eye to the mountains of evidence that our world is changing and what may happen to us, or be required of us to stop the worst from happening.
squamish4244 3 days ago
@squamish4244 I see many other problems including the fact that we aren't so free. We don't have a blank slate where we can put together reality as it is and we are rarely given enough information to make sense of it all. But without emotion how do you even value truth?
Nonetheless, I agree atheists are subject to the same problems theists fall prey to, religious thinking whether it's 9/11 truthers, the universe coming out of nothing or some objective system of ethics.
RuinSonic 3 days ago
@RuinSonic "the universe coming out of nothing" I have never once heard an atheist or scientist ever claim the universe came out of nothing. It's a ridiculous and annoying strawman I've heard so many times. They may suggest the Big Bang, that at one point all matter and space was compressed into a singularity and expanded into the universe we now see, and that it's unknown what happened before that. But universe from nothing? Come on.
zzyzx0788 7 hours ago
@zzyzx0788 Lawrence Krauss, Steven Hawkins. Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins seem to favor this view as well.
I am an atheist and I don't agree with them. But this isn't a straw man. It's surprising you would remain ignorant so long on this topic when so many have made this claimed and haven't backed down on meaning exactly what they said.
RuinSonic 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squamish4244 "All these things cause the Father-General [of the Jesuits] to be feared by the Pope and sovereigns... A sovereign who is not their [the Jesuits'] friend will sooner or later experience their vengeance." (1852)
Luigi Desanctis (Official Censor of the Inquisition)
augustmaquet 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squamish4244 ...Wherever a totalitarian movement erupts, whether Communist or Nazi, a Jesuit can be found in the role of 'advisor' or leader; in [Communist] Cuba Fr. Armando Llorente and in Argentina the neo-Nazis are led by Fr. Menvieille."
Emanuel M. Josephson (1968)
augustmaquet 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@squamish4244 "[Jesuit-trained Illuminist Adam] Weishaupt's success in forcing the Vatican to reestablish the abolished Jesuit Order [Ed. Note: it had been abolished in 1773 by Pope Clement XIV], through revival of the Church's original Nazarene Communism in the form of present-day Communism, led to the conspiracy's control by the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuits]...
augustmaquet 1 day ago
@RuinSonic Instead of letting India and China fly past us in the area of alternative energy, and taking those jobs, we need to get onboard with that ourselves. They are terrible polluters, but their numbers are so huge that if they even devote 5% of their funds to alternative energy sources we will be left in the dust.
squamish4244 3 days ago
@RuinSonic The only reason the Cold War didn't turn into a civilization-ending disaster is because nobody pushed the button, but it came very close several times. Y2K was indeed just stupid alarmism. Also, back in the 1970's there was a 'global cooling' scare, but that was when climate models were much less advanced than they are now. So that has also caused confusion among people.
squamish4244 4 days ago
@squamish4244 You missed the biggest one, overpopulation ie babies. Which will be a problem of its own.
RuinSonic 4 days ago
@kmeighoo It's not pascal's wager. He's assuming global warming is very probable and that we can prevent it. God isn't probable, at least a fire and brimstone one, and a divine judge is not fooled by pretending to be a genuine follower.
Instead of arguing for policy that doesn't stop global warming and hurts the economy, we need to invest in more efficient and green technology that costs less energy and also helps the economy. Forget the other bullshit.
RuinSonic 3 weeks ago
He looks hungover as fuck here
JSCwrd 1 month ago
@RoehmErnst apologize for the moron blast, but GW is a ruse.
.take the following problem to any high school or college physics or chemistry student and have them do the math on the following.Calculate the joule heating of the atmosphere created by one gallon of gasoline as it is burned today in a car. ALL of this energy turns into heat and is pumped directly into the atmosphere RIGHT NOW.
annanownow 1 month ago
@annanownow I'm not quite sure I follow. This means..? The amount of heat generated directly (as you describe, so not counting secondary effects like enhanced greenhouse effect) by burning fossil fuels is tiny compared to the energy of the sun reaching the Earth. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
QuasiGood 1 month ago
@annanownow "Calculate the joule heating of the atmosphere created by one gallon of gasoline as it is burned today in a car".
What is your point? Man-made global warming is not caused by the waste heat from engines. It's caused by changes in the properties of the atmosphere due to increased levels of gases like CO2 and methane that absorb radiation coming back from the Earth's surface and re-radiate it in random directions (as opposed to allowing that radiation to escape directly to space).
guitarpedant 1 month ago
@guitarpedant pt.2: Then calculate the amount of CO2 created by this burning and estimate the alleged greenhouse heating that will supposedly occur in 10 years from now. You will find that the immediate input of heat energy from burning the fuel is thousands of times greater than any alleged greenhouse effect.
annanownow 1 month ago
@annanownow The energy reaching the earth's surface from the sun is about 100,000 TW. That's roughly 10,000 times our current energy usage. As much solar energy reaches Earth in one hour as we consume in a year! How exactly is heating from burning fuels going to be THOUSANDS of times greater than heating from an enhanced greenhouse effect in that case? I suspect you got your maths wrong somewhere, probably by a factor of between 10,000 and 100,000.
guitarpedant 1 month ago
@guitarpedant well the CO2 "heat" created by burning one gallon of gasoline is less than the joule heating that immediately enters the atmosphere from burning one gallon of gasoline. Another example is that nuclear power plants create enormous amounts of energy that enter the atmosphere.
This calculation comes from Prof.James McCanney whose book "Principia Meterologia" is the seminal treatise for attempting to grasp the multitude of factors influencing weather conditions.
williamwallacefree 1 month ago
@RoehmErnst shut up and learn the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, moron
annanownow 1 month ago
people treated him like he was an expert on every subject he spoke, he wasnt. in fact on some subjects he spoke utter shite. one of which is his admiration for scum like tony blair, and his support for tony blair invasion and subsequent murder of hundreds of thousands of women and children. plus his selective recall on the reason airstrip one (britain) followed the USA into iraq.
S1elmx 1 month ago
I miss you Hitch! :-(
tobyn123 1 month ago
God bless Christopher Hitchens
WKRPinCINN 1 month ago
Holy shit. A valid usage of pascal's wager.
xxFortunadoxx 1 month ago 25
@xxFortunadoxx its a miracle! haha
peterlikesthis 1 month ago
@xxFortunadoxx
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
sindark. com/2010/02/04/is-runaway-climate-change-possible-hansens-take/
upi. com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/11/11/IEA-Warming-may-be-irreversible-by-2017/UPI-85861321009920/
onehundredmonths. org
jffryh 2 weeks ago
@jffryh Hooray. Worthless spam.
xxFortunadoxx 2 weeks ago
ozone layer depletion and global warming are two different things.
luf4rall 1 month ago 2
@luf4rall Isn't global warming a consequence of the ozone layer depletion (or destruction)?
MrDiGiWiZ 1 month ago
@MrDiGiWiZ No.
channelhismojo 1 month ago
@luf4rall Are you sure about that ? ucsusa(dot)org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq(dot)html
TheTrueSalpan 1 month ago
They wore matching outfits :3
MrJivePirate 1 month ago
RIP people with headphones
XxTheStealthyClownxX 1 month ago
He was so logical, smart, witty. This earth needed him more!! Such a shame.
Em183 1 month ago 42
Comment removed
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
Where's the numerical data for droughts and floods?
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MilessGloriosus - "Where's the numerical data for droughts and floods?"
I already linked it earlier. It's time for you to start paying attention. I'm not re-posting any more links until you start holding up your end of the burden of proof. You claimed that CO2 has no significant effect on global temp (essentially saying the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist), you claimed that global temp has increased 1 degree or more an atmospheric CO2 rose more than 200% in a few centuries before, link it.
A86 1 month ago
global warming is just made up
TheMessanjah 1 month ago
@TheMessanjah well he said we should still be respectful of earth all the same. Living with these "golden rules" was the whole point.
Em183 1 month ago
@TheMessanjah No it's not.
calogria 1 month ago
"A majority of experts" is not now, and has never been the hallmark of "science". Science does NOT work by "trusting the majority of experts" but instead works by evidence and data, challengable by peer review, and demonstrable by experimental reproducibility. On both scales, the AGW alamism fails miserably. Educate yourself: c3headlines . com / greehouse-gases-atmosphereco2methanewater-vapor /
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
The majority of experts (over 95% of environmental scientists) believe that global warming is happening and is caused by man. Unless you have a degree and can prove to them that they are all wrong, I win the argument on global warming by saying that they are right. Science works by trusting the majority of experts and if new data comes out saying they were wrong, then they adjust. The only reason why there is a controversy is because of misinformation from oil companies and their politicians
JLJorgenson18 1 month ago
@JLJorgenson18
No, science does not work by adhering to a majority vote. You just killed your own argument by failing to follow the scientific standard that you yourself uphold. Please do not debate like that, you'll end up embarrassing yourself.
Nonetheless, it is real and probably is largely contributed by human acts. You won't find anyone in their right mind saying otherwise. There is however a debate over how much of an issue it will create, and therefore a debate about prioritizing it.
iOnlyHaveThisForWoW 1 month ago
@iOnlyHaveThisForWoW Actually science works through the peer reviewed process and scientific viewpoints/theories are solidified once a majority of credible scientists agree on said viewpoint. My point is that if you want to debate it or try to find out more about it, go get a degree in the field and get involved in the peer reviewed process. Until then, you are a charlatan and you are as dangerous to knowledge as a non-doctor giving medical advice to a sick person.
JLJorgenson18 1 month ago 48
This has been flagged as spam show
@JLJorgenson18
" Until then, you are a charlatan and you are as dangerous to knowledge as a non-doctor giving medical advice to a sick person."
Aren't you guilty of the very thing you are pointing out?
Mr. Kettle, meet pot.
Romansteel13 1 month ago
@JLJorgenson18 How embarrassing for you.
MyAccount4TrollingU 1 month ago
In truth, we might not have any time left to have an effect on stopping warming, and when the antartic ice melts, we'll die, maybe in 100 years?
MicksKicks1 1 month ago
Comment removed
Incognitoification1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MicksKicks1 Conspiracy theorists are also damaging the consensus and delaying action(It seems to be having some effect also, for example, the majority of the population in the UK believe global warming isn't real, or at least, not caused by humans), they claim global warming is a fairy tale, initiated by secretive shadowy powers behind the scenes, pushing global warming as a means of imposing carbon taxes, other regulations, and for draconian societal control.
Incognitoification1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The truth hurts, eh?
That fact is, that Hitch was a whore that sold garbage to the highest bidder, and the rag he worked for is amongst the most right-wing garbage published in the US.
Now watch:"Christopher Hitchens - It Was Right to Invade "
watch?v=E96-2BftzGE
yourtreat2 1 month ago
Hitchens seems to subscribe to Pascal's Wager when it comes to global warming.
BrainEatingApe 1 month ago
@BrainEatingApe
not every executive decision based on insufficient information is pascal's wager.
myrelative 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 We're back where we started - Your claim: "it's the average of how many significant events happen per year or per decade over time." Okay. Show the DATA from a reputable source that covers more than a single area or a few short decades of time.
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "Show the DATA from a reputable source"
Again, I already linked it earlier. The data is global data compiled over the past several centuries. We have data going back much, much further:
(.) skepticalscience (.) com / medieval - warm - period - intermediate (.) htm
I was nice enough to just give you a link that even VISUALLY shows you global temperature data in an infrared color graph.
A86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@A86 I never claimed IPCC was disreputable, just that they didn't give the DATA you promised (drought and flood increases). RE: climate stability in the last 20 million years - look up "Ice Ages". I'm not denying the greenhouse effect - but it's mainly methane and water vapor (CO2 is a trivial contributor). For only one CO2/temp correlation example, try w w w (.) paulmacrae (.) com (/?) p = 29 . But you STILL haven't provided any DATA for your first assertion (drought and flood increases).
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "RE: climate stability in the last 20 million years - look up "Ice Ages"
What about them? What do they have to do with current climate change and in which Ice Age did atmospheric CO2 concentration rise or drop over 100ppm in a few hundred years? Answer: None of them. Ice Ages take place over tens of thousands of years and are usually a result of the Milankovitch Cycle. Which takes place over tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.
A86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MilessGloriosus - "I'm not denying the greenhouse effect - but it's mainly methane and water vapor (CO2 is a trivial contributor)"
CO2 has far less radiative forcing effect than methane and water vapor but it's not a "trivial contributor" because CO2 is far more voluminous in the Earth's atmosphere than methane (even though methane traps about 8 times as much heat). Water vapor is intricately linked with CO2 levels because more CO2 causes more heat and thus more evaporation (and water vapor).
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - Though water vapor in the form of clouds can have negative radiative forcing because increased cloud cover can lower global temperatures. However, much of the increased recent water vapor isn't turning into clouds.
"you STILL haven't provided any DATA for your first assertion"
Re-read those sections I mentioned from the link. If for whatever reason you still don't think it's enough data I can provide other sources.
A86 1 month ago
@A86 Your references only gave verbal assertions of increases in droughts and floods. But still no DATA was provided. As far as ice ages developing over hundreds of years - that's unproven, and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths. But the main point is that the assertion that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture. We've seen some minor temperature fluctuations, but they're likely unrelated to CO2.
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "and there is significant evidence that some developed much more quickly - look up frozen mammoths"
What does development of sudden ice storms have to do with GLOBAL TEMPERATURE or atmospheric CO2 concentrations? The fact that ice storms can occur quickly does not show that the global temperature increased or decreased over 1 degree in a few hundred years, or that atmospheric CO2 dropped or rose more than 200% in a few hundred years.
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture"
Again, you're essentially denying the Greenhouse Effect by saying CO2 would somehow magically not affect atmospheric temperature (the only way it wouldn't is if the Greenhouse Effect does not exist). It's consistently shown to affect atmospheric temperature on small scale and large scale. Look at a graph of global temperature over the past 150 years and look at CO2 concentration over the same time.
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - Denying the Greenhouse Effect is about like denying the Law of Gravity. That's certainly not going to help garner any credibility for your argument.
"but they're likely unrelated to CO2"
According to whom? Not only is the consistent temperature increase not a "minor fluctuation" what would magically be causing temperature to rise if not CO2? There has not been enough of a rise in methane to cause most of it and it's not the Sun causing it either.
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "Your references only gave verbal assertions of increases in droughts and floods"
Okay, here's the data:
(.) ipcc (.) ch / publications _ and _ data / ar4 / wg1 / en / tssts - 3-5 (.) html
A86 1 month ago
@A86 Still no DATA for a real increase in frequency of Droughts and Floods. The skepticalscience link was interesting, but a quick review of the comments revealed the weakness of their argument – they biased the stats where they could by assuming localization (using normal temps for locations with no records). The IPCC link provides some other data, but does not show a statistically significant increase in Droughts and Floods occurring now.
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - *sigh*
(.) nature (.) com / news / 2011 / 110216 / full / 470316a (.) html
"they biased the stats where they could by assuming localization"
According to whom? Their temperature graph has a blatant subtitle caption that says gray areas are areas for which there is no data.
A86 1 month ago
@A86 Strawman alert again – I have not denied the greenhouse effect. But you deny the science by refusing to recognize that CO2 is orders of magnitude less effective than water vapor or methane. AGW proponents just can’t accept the possibility that a correlated increase in CO2 and a minor temperature increase (within normal variation) might not actually have a causal relationship. Educate yourself: c3headlines . com / greehouse-gases-atmosphereco2methanewater-vapor /
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "I have not denied the greenhouse effect"
Yes, you did. You said, "But the main point is that the assertion that CO2 increases will drive up global temperatures remains pure conjecture" That's essentially denying the Greenhouse Effect since you're claiming increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration have no effect on temperature. That would require that there be no Greenhouse Effect for CO2 to have no effect on global temperature.
A86 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MilessGloriosus - "you deny the science by refusing to recognize that CO2 is orders of magnitude less effective than water vapor or methane"
Did you even read my comments? I plainly said: "CO2 has far less radiative forcing effect than methane and water vapor but it's not a "trivial contributor" because CO2 is far more voluminous in the Earth's atmosphere than methane (even though methane traps about 8 times as much heat)." CO2 has less radiative forcing but there's FAR more of it around.
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - Aside from the link you provided being a source with an ideological slant (it plainly states it's a politically conservative source and the writing style shows it's obviously a blog by an individual who is most likely not a climatologist) its "argument" is that the Earth is cooling because some GHG aerosols (such as methane) are decreasing in the rate they're being pumped into the atmosphere. It's patently false because all data shows a continuing increase in global temp.
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - The website even clumsily links a NASA article which claims that certain aerosols have dropped in the atmosphere without reading the article which states those aerosols are ones with NEGATIVE radiative forcing (meaning they cool the planet):
(.) nasa (.) gov / centers / goddard / news / topstory / 2007 / aerosol _ dimming (.) html
It's saying the Earth will continue to get hotter due to less aerosols to help cool the Earth down. The exact opposite of what the website argues.
A86 1 month ago
@A86 A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event - covering a significant area (Siberia & N America). We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year. It strains credulity to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts at the same time, almost certainly exceeding 1C. Our current temp shifts are not abnormal.
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - The NASA article blatantly says, "Sun-blocking aerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates. The decline appears to have brought an end to the "global dimming" earlier in the century. Credit: Michael Mishchenko, NASA" and starts off saying, "an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases...appears to have lost ground. "
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "A “sudden ice storm” that persists for 40,000 years instead must be recognized as having been an instantaneous climate disruption event"
What is this "sudden ice storm" you're referring to and when did GLOBAL TEMPERATURE drop 1 degree or more and atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise or fall more than 100ppm in a few hundred years during this time?
A86 1 month ago
@MilessGloriosus - "We simply can’t reconstruct the global temp records for that specific year"
And what year is this supposedly? Since we can reconstruct global temperatures for many other years I'm betting you're incorrect.
"to suggest that the rest of the globe did not experience major temp shifts" No, it doesn't. The "Little Ice Age" Period from 1400-1850 was largely a local phenomenon. It didn't affect the entire planet even though it was significant for parts of the Northern Hemisphere.
A86 1 month ago
@A86 You described “climate stability” during the last 20M years and chaffed at my reminder of Ice Ages, claiming they were unimportant. That’s a hoot. Ice core temperature reconstruction methodology is not precise enough to accurately identify global temperature changes over periods less than a few centuries. So your challenge to show another century when temps increased by 1C and CO2 increased by 100ppm is silly. The burden of proof that something has actually changed thus falls back to you.
MilessGloriosus 1 month ago