An Inconvienent Graph

[shanex]

When questioning people's beliefs in man-made global warming, I am often confronted with the 5-minute segment in "An Inconvenient truth" that seemed to sway most people's opinions. When I ask them what actual science they saw that convinced them, they often refer to that. So let's talk about that

Comments

[xiphias]

Here's the real thing:

Global warming is real. Whether it's increasing or man-made, okay, I'm willing to disagree on that.

However, every single thing action that ought to be taken if it IS man-made is something that has other benefits as well, and would generally be beneficial without man-made global warming.

[aesir_of_doom]

I agree with this, here. I'll concede that correlation does not necessarily equal causation (though occam's razor makes me wonder what would be causing global temperature change other than a geometric rise in carbon dioxide emissions) but I fail to see why reducing waste/pollution and researching alternative energy is a bad thing, so long as we're not listening to the idiots in the rubber dinghies who'd have us all living in trees.

[shanex]

As I said, I'm in favor of any environmentally themed law that can be directly shown to benefit humans.

Reducing pollution I agree with. I want to breathe.

But costing companies millions (which in turn drives down wages and number of employees) by forcing them to reduce CO2 emissions serves no purpose unless you accept as a given that man-made CO2 leads to global warming. That's a premise I do not hold, and thus I oppose those laws.

So the argument "Who cares if it's real, these laws are beneficial to society" doesn't hold true all the time. It's the places where that statement doesn't hold true that I am concerned about.

-ATW

[mzzscarlet]

"An Inconvenient Graph" is beautifully presented and a pleasure to read. And you've even convinced me to reconsider my cavalier attitude about fear-motivated pollution controls. We need to consider each case carefully.

[shanex]

Admittedly "Global Warming" was an inaccurate depiction of the situation and "Global Climate Change" is a much better descriptor. But I would ask you to remember that when it was called "Global Warming", everyone believed the globe was warming. That's the power the new environmental movement has in terms of unintentionally causing disinformation and a disinclination to double-check the science. Your point re-enforces my own.

-ATW

Missing a possibility

[ext_96956]

In your analysis, you ignore the possibility that the two correlated phenomena are unrelated and are only trending the same way coincidentally.

Re: Missing a possibility

[shanex]

I didn't ignore that possibility so much as discount it. The correlation is compelling enough to convince me (in a gut-feel sort of way) that there must be something binding the two factors.

-ATW

Re: Missing a possibility

[ext_96956]

Since I'm nitpicking.com: your analogy isn't really valid. There's a compelling, plausible mechanism to explain a direct causative relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, which is not true in the "water causes thunder" case.

Re: Missing a possibility

[shanex]

(Your reply got double-posted. So I deleted one.)

I have heard many theories as to how CO2 could cause global temperature changes, but I haven't seen any of them proven to me to my satisfaction. At least, no more plausible than reverse theories indicating CO2 is generated by temperature.

Meanwhile, in Goreville, their scientists explain that the evaporated water from lawn sprinklers gets in to the atmosphere and affects ionization affinity of the air. This leads to larger local ionization over smaller areas within the sky, which is the root cause of thunder.

Some people think that lawn sprinklers, even when widely used all over, couldn't possibly affect something as gigantic as the atmosphere of earth. They are ignored and ridiculed.

-ATW