Aliens cause global warming

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

To Lockheed.

On margin of error. We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about calculated margin, and I am talking about genuine error. You can calculate margin of error, and be correct if you have all the facts. The point I am making is that we do not have all the facts in relation to climate over the next 100 years. It is the unknowns that will kill it.

Genuine error? The margin of error includes all the known significant variables. There are only so many compounds in Earth's atmosphere that contribute to global warming or global cooling (or rather, there are only so many compounds in the atmosphere, period).

Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?

[Mr Skeptic]

Very good, iNow. I shall take this as sufficient evidence that the effects of warming on the carbon cycle have been accounted for. What about all the other points I made?

Originally Posted by Mr Skeptic

iNow, Have you proven that we won't change to using nuclear or renewable power? Have you proven that we won't invent a successful fusion power plant within 100 years? Have you proven that the warming won't cause an increase in plant and algae growth? Have you proven that we won't start taking some preventative measures, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, or using terra preta to put carbon into the soil? This is a very limited list, and I can expand further on the difficulties of predicting the future if you wish.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Lockheed

Not proven?! We know exactly how much greenhouse gases is being dumped right into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, and we know how much of it is being absorbed back into the CO2 cycle (or other cycles/processes).

You say it's proven? Then why doesn't the IPCC say it's proven? They don't, you know.

So why is it so important that we ensure that anyone who posts on SFN use the word "proven"? Why is that necessary? What are we accomplishing by requiring that all posters use that word? Is it so dangerous to point out that there is reasonable doubt about the cause?

What are WE going to accomplish HERE by drowning out and ostracizing anybody who does not use the word "proven"? That is what I want to know. And I really don't think it's asking a whole lot for it to be explained to me why we have to behave in this manner. I've BEEN on boards where the community refuses to countenance other points of view. Those boards accomplish NOTHING. They convince NO ONE. They get NO WHERE. Not EVER. And they drive away the EXACT people who could help them with that problem.

Is that what you all want to happen here? Are you SURE?

[SkepticLance]

Lockheed said

"Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?"

I am kind of repeating myself here, which I am reluctant to do, since this was covered in an earlier post. It is those factors which are not properly understood that contribute the greatest error. My earlier post mentioned the effects of increased plant growth, changing cloud patterns, changes in sunspot activity etc. If we knew the impact of poorly understood factors, there would not be the error. I would suspect there are other factors that will come to us as a surprise.

[swansont]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

The problem here, ultimately, is not that you're right and iNow is wrong, or vice versa, but that we don't have enough people espousing politically incorrect points of view. That's not because those points of view don't exist -- that's the part iNow doesn't seem to understand. He thinks if you can't prove your point then your point is wrong. That's not the case at all, it's only one possibility. You may very well be right but simply didn't make your case.

iNow has been discussing science, not politics. It's expected that when you propose something you back it up with evidence. If you can't, or your methodology is flawed, your point is not valid/not supported. It's not about right/wrong, per se.

Originally Posted by Pangloss

This is not a laboratory, it's a discussion board. Anybody who thinks we're proving or disproving science here is deluding themselves. This board is for (a) clarifying the details, and (b) debating conjectures and theories. You know, the stuff that hasn't been proven one way or the other yet. Like human contribution to global warming.

All we can do is discuss the science that's out there. But the discussion should be about science, and be limited to the science (if the discussion is here; discuss politics on the politics board)

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. But since it may not be possible to ever actually prove, that means we may have to settle for what we have. So what we do about that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Do we listen to all points of view and proceed when we have a majority, recognizing that we could still be making a mistake and taking careful measures to protect against that possibility? Or do we drown out the opposition, ostracize anyone who's not on board, and take no precautions against that possibility whatsoever?

You know what, that doesn't seem like such a hard call to me. And it's the green text above that I want to support here. Not the red.

The green is the IPCC. If someone has valid, scientific objections, they should make them.

[bombus]

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

bombus

Have your read Lomborg's book? You need to. I recommend it.

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive. Those people needed a solid kick in the fundamentus. Sadly, presenting truth does not mean truth is accepted, and most people still think with their gonads.

Of course I haven't. Anyone so fundamentally stupid to say that species extinction is not linked to habitat loss is not worthy of my attention. I might as well read the Bible for explanations. Lomborg's just out to get a name for himself, get the gullible on his side, and earn cash. He's no scientist and not capable of writing scientific literature. He should be ignored.

[Reaper]

Ok everybody, lets stop the thread for a second here before everyone starts bashing and cussing each other around.

This, as we all know, is a very sensitive topic socially and politically. But, those issues have absolutely nothing to do with the science. It cares very little on the biases and feelings that people may have on it.

As such, what we are trying to evaluate here is the validity of the counter argument. We are in no way trying to ostracize the opposition in anyway, but rather to get them to support their counter arguments.

Now that is out of the way, let us now continue the debate like calm rational people here.

===================================

Originally Posted by Pangloss

You say it's proven? Then why doesn't the IPCC say it's proven? They don't, you know.

So why is it so important that we ensure that anyone who posts on SFN use the word "proven"? Why is that necessary? What are we accomplishing by requiring that all posters use that word? Is it so dangerous to point out that there is reasonable doubt about the cause?

Is that what you all want to happen here? Are you SURE?

You said that human contribution to climate change and/or global warming is not proven, which flies in the face of what I know to be true. Humans do indeed have a significant effect on the climate and the atmospheric content of the atmosphere.

And how do we know this? Well, lets put aside climate for now and talk about physics and chemistry, for it seems as if a lack of understanding of this fundamental topic is proving to be very detrimental to our understanding of the world around us.

Ok, for starters, lets take a greenhouse gas molecule like, say, carbon dioxide:



Take a good look at it. Let it sink in.

Ok, now that particular molecule can absorb mostly infrared radiation. Now, how does it do this. Well, when a beam of infrared radiation strikes that molecule, it causes it to vibrate. It is then released , where the particular beam now has less energy. It moves on, where it would either strike the ground or will hit yet another greenhouse molecule. As it turns out, all greenhouse gases have this property, absorbing different wavelengths of course.

Now, lets take a look at a chart which displays what exactly the sun emits:



(SOURCE: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm)

As you can see, the sun emits mostly visible light, infrared radiation, and UV radiation. 43% of it is visible light in particular, BUT the atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light. About 7-8% of it is UV, and about the same amount of it is infrared, both of which is absorbed by the atmosphere before it hits the ground. These may seem like small numbers, but they are pretty significant given the amount of energy that hits Earth on a daily basis.

Now, lets get back to this carbon dioxide molecule here. Because it has this intrinsic property, that means it can retain heat and consequentially raise the temperature (which by the way is a measure of the average energy). Our atmosphere may contain less than 0.04% of it in our atmosphere, but as we can see this small amount is more than enough to heat the planet up to allow it to have a temperate climate. And, given the trillions upon trillions of tons of gases that make up our atmosphere in total, 0.04% isn't that small a number.

Now, you may ask, what is the point of all this. Well then, because of this property, and given the BILLIONS of tons of greenhouse gases we are dumping into the atmosphere (among other things) every year, we know for certain that we do, indeed, contribute to climate change to some degree. And, we also know that we are releasing more and more greenhouse gases every year too, more so than the year before that.



The only thing that is being debated here is to what extent that we are contributing to global climate change, and how exactly this climate will change, and more specifically what it means for us humans. So far, all evidence points to the idea that we may very well be the primary driver of climate change and are causing anthropogenic global warming. Unless genuine evidence to the contrary were to be found, we have to use the best we've got, as you said earlier before, however negative or positive that may be.

And this isn't about points of view, its about getting some facts straight and using valid scientific data. And believe me, I know what those sites are like (sites that promote only ONE viewpoint); we are doing no such thing here. On the contrary, I'd have to say that this is one of the most forgiving and open-minded sites there is. Because of this and other arguments, I now know why the opposition is false, as opposed to having seeds of doubt planted before. SkepticLance is free to bring up any viewpoint or interpretation he wants, but until he provides valid scientific data his claims will have no validity.

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

Lockheed said

"Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?"

I am kind of repeating myself here, which I am reluctant to do, since this was covered in an earlier post. It is those factors which are not properly understood that contribute the greatest error. My earlier post mentioned the effects of increased plant growth, changing cloud patterns, changes in sunspot activity etc. If we knew the impact of poorly understood factors, there would not be the error. I would suspect there are other factors that will come to us as a surprise.

Yes, I did catch those thank you very much, and as far as I can tell those have been thoroughly debunked on other earlier posts. Please try again.

Originally Posted by bombus

Of course I haven't. Anyone so fundamentally stupid to say that species extinction is not linked to habitat loss is not worthy of my attention. I might as well read the Bible for explanations. Lomborg's just out to get a name for himself, get the gullible on his side, and earn cash. He's no scientist and not capable of writing scientific literature. He should be ignored.

Now this is a genuine example of logical fallacies if I ever seen one. More specifically, this is an ad hominem and a non sequitur. First, Lomborg doesn't claim to be a trained scientist, and second, just because he isn't a scientist doesn't mean that he is not allowed to write scientific literature. After all, Al Gore wasn't a scientist either, does that mean he wasn't allowed to present an Inconvenient Truth? I can list loads of people who weren't scientists, and have written great scientific literature.

The difference between Al Gore and Lomborg, from what I can tell, is that Al Gore presented valid data, while Lomborg did not.

And second, just because someone has different points of view or are ignorant of (or don't understand the significance of) certain facts doesn't mean they are stupid. That is just a baseless insult and comments such as this have no place on a science forum.

Originally Posted by Mr Skeptic

Very good, iNow. I shall take this as sufficient evidence that the effects of warming on the carbon cycle have been accounted for. What about all the other points I made?

Actually, some of these models do assume that we start using more sustainable methods. I don't have time to actually show you all of them right now, but I found one projection that assumes that in 2100 it is expected that more than 40% of the world's total power supply will come from nuclear or other renewable resources. However, it is also expected that the population will be over 11 billion.

And that's just one such projection.

[swansont]

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

There are some things I do not dispute. I agree that CO2 is increasing and this is driving global warming. I know that CO2 emissions need to be controlled. I do NOT agree that they will get further out of control. I have more faith in human technology than that. Humans are highly adaptable, and are fully able to change things, especially when that involves introducing new technology.

But there are two separate issues here. One is political: what steps, if any, should be taken to mitigate the effect of global warming.

But the other is scientific: what would be the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Now, the political question depends on the answer to the scientific one, but should be discussed elsewhere. Saying that technology will be developed to avoid this increase in CO2 is also a political question. The question under consideration here is the validity of the prediction that temperature would increase between 2 ºC and 4.5 ºC if CO2 doubled (i.e. what is the climate sensitivity). Factors that might stem this increase are a separate issue, and should be discussed separately.

[iNow]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. But since it may not be possible to ever actually prove, that means we may have to settle for what we have.

Originally Posted by Lockheed

Not proven?! We know exactly how much greenhouse gases is being dumped right into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, and we know how much of it is being absorbed back into the CO2 cycle (or other cycles/processes). This isn't so much about arguing points of view or alternative theories as much as it is about SkepticLance not keeping his facts straight, or providing sources, or both!

For those of you unaware, here is a link showing trends from 1750 to today: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm

Originally Posted by Pangloss

You say it's proven? Then why doesn't the IPCC say it's proven? They don't, you know.

So why is it so important that we ensure that anyone who posts on SFN use the word "proven"? Why is that necessary? What are we accomplishing by requiring that all posters use that word?

More data. Show me where it's mistaken. Thank you swansont for reminding readers this is not the politics forum.


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter2.pdf

The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8] W m^–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.

This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes.

For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF.

Increasing concentrations of the long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆); hereinafter LLGHGs) have led to a combined RF of +2.63 [±0.26] W m^–2. Their RF has a high level of scientific understanding. The 9% increase in this RF since the TAR is the result of concentration changes since 1998.

— The global mean concentration of CO₂ in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m^–2. Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three-quarters of the current RF, with the remainder caused by land use changes.

For the 1995 to 2005 decade, the growth rate of CO₂ in the atmosphere was 1.9 ppm yr^–1 and the CO₂ RF increased by 20%: this is the largest change observed or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years.

From 1999 to 2005, global emissions from fossil fuel and cement production increased at a rate of roughly 3% yr^–1.

Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that aff ect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature.

The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state. Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system. Important challenges for climate scientists are to identify all the factors that aff ect climate and the mechanisms by which they exert a forcing, to quantify the radiative forcing of each factor and to evaluate the total radiative forcing from the group of factors.

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by swansont

The green is the IPCC. If someone has valid, scientific objections, they should make them.

Then why didn't you, personally, object to Lockheed's statement above that the IPCC is wrong and human contribution is a proven, demonstrable fact?

The answer is that human contribution is politically correct on this board, and challenging it is not. It's okay for one side to disagree with the IPCC, but not the other.

So much for limiting the discussion to the scientific facts.


Here, watch him do it again, and again go unchallenged by the politically correct side of this community:

Originally Posted by Lockheed

You said that human contribution to climate change and/or global warming is not proven, which flies in the face of what I know to be true. Humans do indeed have a significant effect on the climate and the atmospheric content of the atmosphere.

Lockheed, you're saying something different from what you said before. You've amended your position from human contribution is THE cause of global warming to human contribution is A cause to global warming.

Since I agree with the position that human contribution is A cause of global warming we have no argument, you and I.

But I note, again, that you changed your position, nobody challenged you on it, and you've proven MY point that politically correct viewpoints are supported here and politically incorrect viewpoints are not.

[iNow]

Pangloss - Maybe a new thread is in order? If it stays here, I'm going to slam you for all of your strawmen, false dichotomies, and appeals rooted in logical fallacy.

[SkepticLance]

There is an awful lot of hot air being released here, and to very little effect.

First : proving that global warming is caused by human action. Let's not get into a tizz about anything that includes the word 'proof'. In science, nothing is proved, as we should all know. However, that does not been we cannot accept something to be considered a good model of reality, until more evidence shows otherwise.

I would suggest that we all avoid this nonsense by agreeing that human action, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, over the past 30 years is a good model of the cause of global warming over that same period. That way we get around the impossibility of 'proof'.

To bombus

Your statement that Lomborg must be wrong is a reflection of the almost certainty that you have not read him. I actually introduced the example you note in a new thread on this forum some time ago, and asked members if they could come up with examples of species that had been made extinct purely by habitat loss. No-one could.

I can list from memory any number of species that have gone extinct for one major reason only, when that reason is overhunting/overfishing by humans, or when the reason is introduction of an alien species into the environment. Trying to list species that have gone extinct for the dominant reason that their habitat has been destroyed (say by deforestation) is an almost impossibility. I am sure there are examples, but they are few and far between.

Thus, for Lomborg to say that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction is actually quite correct.

Bombus, I strongly suggest you read Lomborg before you criticise him. His work is meticulously researched. His bibliography is massive. Everything he says is supported by references. The fact that you do not like his conclusions does not make him wrong.

[iNow]

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

I would suggest that we all avoid this nonsense by agreeing that human action, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, over the past 30 years is a good model of the cause of global warming over that same period. That way we get around the impossibility of 'proof'.

Agreed, with the exception that I see zero reason to limit the dataset to the past 30 years.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

If you go back more than 30 years, say to 1941, you get a period of net global cooling. It is something of a complication, to say the least, to talk about human action causing global warming, when the world is actually cooling.

From about 1941 to about 1966, the world cooled down by 0.2 C. From about 1966 to about 1976, the world temperature bounced up and down a bit but did not increase overall. After 1976, there was a 30 year period of steady warming (ignoring the minor fluctuations up and down). This is the 30 year period I was referring to.

[swansont]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Then why didn't you, personally, object to Lockheed's statement above that the IPCC is wrong and human contribution is a proven, demonstrable fact?

You mean the response to this?

Originally Posted by Pangloss

Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations.

The reason I didn't is that you had, by the context, either defined "proven" to be what scientists would normally say "has lots of supporting evidence." or were using it in the context of "deductively proven" which means it's just a semantic game showing equivocation; I assume you know that science is inductive and nothing is ever deductively proven, so I also assume you meant the former and not the latter.

In that context, the IPCC says "There is very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750
has been one of warming" where "very high confidence" is defined to mean a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.

So which statement is more correct? According to the report, the human cause of warming is proven or not proven?

Originally Posted by Pangloss

The answer is that human contribution is politically correct on this board, and challenging it is not. It's okay for one side to disagree with the IPCC, but not the other.

So much for limiting the discussion to the scientific facts.


Here, watch him do it again, and again go unchallenged by the politically correct side of this community:



Lockheed, you're saying something different from what you said before. You've amended your position from human contribution is THE cause of global warming to human contribution is A cause to global warming.

You'll have to produce the quote where Lockheed says the first part of this. I can't find it.

[bombus]

To bombus

Your statement that Lomborg must be wrong is a reflection of the almost certainty that you have not read him. I actually introduced the example you note in a new thread on this forum some time ago, and asked members if they could come up with examples of species that had been made extinct purely by habitat loss. No-one could.

You (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it.

I can list from memory any number of species that have gone extinct for one major reason only, when that reason is overhunting/overfishing by humans, or when the reason is introduction of an alien species into the environment.

Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?

Trying to list species that have gone extinct for the dominant reason that their habitat has been destroyed (say by deforestation) is an almost impossibility.

The Chinese River Dolphin is the latest. Many others are on the brink but kept from going extinct because of 'artificial' conservation effort. Many others were all but destroyed by habitat loss but some other factor was the final nail in the coffin. Either way, you are wrong.

I am sure there are examples, but they are few and far between.

Because of huge conservation effort.

Thus, for Lomborg to say that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction is actually quite correct.

Maybe, but it's totally incorrect for one to infer from that statement that habitat loss is not the greatest threat to species. I'd actually disagree with Lomborg on that point as well though.

Bombus, I strongly suggest you read Lomborg before you criticise him. His work is meticulously researched. His bibliography is massive. Everything he says is supported by references.

Which he misuses due to his basic misunderstanding of science.

The fact that you do not like his conclusions does not make him wrong.

SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way. Like I have said in past threads, using Lomborg's logic, guns have never killed anyone, bullets have never killed anyone, blood loss has never killed anyone, 'cos it's all down to a lack of oxygen to the brain.

Really, SkepticLance, Lomborg is WRONG WRONG and thrice WRONG! If you think he's correct I suggest you read more scientific literature, 'cos you obviously have not read enough if you can be fooled by Lomborg's smoke and mirrors.

[SkepticLance]

To bombus, re Lomborg.

First : Hav you read his book? If not, your arguments actually mean very little.

You said :

"You (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it"

Actually no. Some examples were offered. Each and every one was of an extinction which had several causes, and habitat loss was not in any case the primary cause, with the possible exception of the Yangtze River dolphin, which was probably mainly killed by water pollution. However, even in that case, there were other factors, such as the large number of dolphins killed by nets in that river.

You also said :

"Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?"

You are now trying to win a debate by arbitrarily altering definitions. Habitat loss is when the habitat is gone. Alien species are not loss of habitat. They are a new, added factor. Not a loss of habitat.

You could use your altered definition to say each and every cause of extinction is habitat loss. If people arrive and hunt an animal to extinction, that is habitat loss. If a new disease causes an extinction, that is habitat loss. Sorry bombus. That tactic is cheating.

Here in New Zealand, the native thrush is extinct. The cause is predation by introduced rats and stoats. But its habitat remains. It lives in South Island rain forest. The South Island rain forest is still there, so the habitat is not lost. Its extinction was not caused by habitat loss.

You also said

"SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way."

Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist. He is an associate professor of statistics at a Danish University of Aarhus, and is also trained as an economist. He is far from stupid. He is actually rather smart, as his Ph.D. kind of testifies. His research for his book was meticulous, and his conclusions follow directly from the papers and studies he refers to.

He is not alone in the stance he took. Professor Julian Simon was the first person to publicise the data showing that the global environment was not all some kind of disaster story. Numerous others has also written to demonstrate the same. However, good news is never acceptable by environmentalists, and people ignore the facts to concentrate on the dogma.

I suggest you read Lomborg's book.

[bombus]

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

To bombus, re Lomborg.First : Hav you read his book? If not, your arguments actually mean very little.

Nope. My arguments mean more than Lomborg's. And i restate that you (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it.

Actually no. Some examples were offered. Each and every one was of an extinction which had several causes, and habitat loss was not in any case the primary cause, with the possible exception of the Yangtze River dolphin, which was probably mainly killed by water pollution. However, even in that case, there were other factors, such as the large number of dolphins killed by nets in that river.

The other factors would have had little impact if the habitat had remained intact.

You also said :

"Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?"

You are now trying to win a debate by arbitrarily altering definitions. Habitat loss is when the habitat is gone. Alien species are not loss of habitat. They are a new, added factor. Not a loss of habitat.


You could use your altered definition to say each and every cause of extinction is habitat loss. If people arrive and hunt an animal to extinction, that is habitat loss. If a new disease causes an extinction, that is habitat loss. Sorry bombus. That tactic is cheating.

Here in New Zealand, the native thrush is extinct. The cause is predation by introduced rats and stoats. But its habitat remains. It lives in South Island rain forest. The South Island rain forest is still there, so the habitat is not lost. Its extinction was not caused by habitat loss.

Yaaaawwn. As you are a microbiologist may I suggest that you have simply not studied enough ecology. You appear not to understand what constitutes a habitat. Thusly, you are finding it hard to judge when a habitat is lost - just like Lomborg.

You also said

"SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way."

Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist. He is an associate professor of statistics at a Danish University of Aarhus, and is also trained as an economist. He is far from stupid. He is actually rather smart, as his Ph.D. kind of testifies. His research for his book was meticulous, and his conclusions follow directly from the papers and studies he refers to.

If you can get a BSc, you can get a PhD. It's just extended study. It doesn't require any more brains. His research is NOT meticulous at all. He is like those creationists who meticulously 'research' scientific papers to 'prove' that evolution is a myth. They cannot interpret what they are referring to either.

He is not alone in the stance he took.

He is effectively alone. And there's a very good reason why - he's WRONG!

Professor Julian Simon was the first person to publicise the data showing that the global environment was not all some kind of disaster story.

YET!!!

Numerous others has also written to demonstrate the same. However, good news is never acceptable by environmentalists, and people ignore the facts to concentrate on the dogma.

Total nonsense.

I suggest you read Lomborg's book.

Ho ho ho. May I suggest you read the Bible. It's the word of God you know, and PROVES that evolution is a myth. (It makes more sense than Lomborg!)

SkepticLance, I am sorry, but IMO you are barking up the wrong tree if you think Lomborg is anything but a good statitician, and you know what they're like - if I had my head in a fire and my feet in a bucket of ice, statistically, I'd be OK!

[iNow]

Originally Posted by SkepticLance

If you go back more than 30 years, say to 1941, you get a period of net global cooling. It is something of a complication, to say the least, to talk about human action causing global warming, when the world is actually cooling.

From about 1941 to about 1966, the world cooled down by 0.2 C. From about 1966 to about 1976, the world temperature bounced up and down a bit but did not increase overall. After 1976, there was a 30 year period of steady warming (ignoring the minor fluctuations up and down). This is the 30 year period I was referring to.

CO₂ is only ONE forcing factor, and despite relatively high CO₂ during a given epoch, there may be other factors causing the overall temperature trends to go down. Essentially, it's not improbable that while atmospheric CO₂ was up other forcing factors were "out weighing" that impact and driving overall temperature trends downward.

Basically, it's misleading to think along those lines... ("how is it that temperatures went down when CO₂ concentrations went up? how do you explain THAT mister smarty pants scientist person?")... because other factors contribute to temperature change. Just because the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ was high while temperatures decreased does not mean that CO₂ wasn't a forcing factor. Also, just because there were periods where temperature went down does NOT mean that human concentrations to atmospheric CO₂ were not driving global mean temperatures upward.

When viewing this data, and looking at the information, try to recall that temperature change is due to multiple contributions from several different sources. These sources influence the temperature both up and down, depending on the details of that force and it's intensity, all coupled with what else is happening during the time in question. It's the cumulative effect of all of the forces that dictates what temperature does.

The size of the forcing and the size of the temperature change during a given time period will not, in general, align completely, and this is because of contributions from other factors.


This was ALSO already demonstrated clearly to you in another thread (the one I linked above regarding your attack on the models).


So... I repeat. I can see ZERO reason to limit the dataset to the past 30 years.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Pangloss

So much for limiting the discussion to the scientific facts.

Beautiful.

Here, watch him do it again, and again go unchallenged by the politically correct side of this community:



Lockheed, you're saying something different from what you said before. You've amended your position from human contribution is THE cause of global warming to human contribution is A cause to global warming.

Since I agree with the position that human contribution is A cause of global warming we have no argument, you and I.

But I note, again, that you changed your position, nobody challenged you on it, and you've proven MY point that politically correct viewpoints are supported here and politically incorrect viewpoints are not.

What are you talking about? I addressed your (erronous) claim just fine. Your the one making a strawman here.

And besides, I hate politics.