[david85]

Originally Posted by IamIan

It is the opposite that is very hard ... proving zero would require all tests to never show anything all the way down to zero ... but if any test above zero shows anything zero is disproved.

I am not trying to claim we have zero influence.

Originally Posted by IamIan

My point is that if we don't know both 1&2
#1> how much the influence is
#2> how much influence is needed

Than we also are not justified to compare those two to be able to claim it to be 'silly'... or any other judgement on the comparison of two things that we don't know.

without knowing those two things ... we don't know if it is possible or not ... probable or not ... silly or not... we just don't know ... nothing more... nothing less.

Yes. You have said that many times. And I'll say again, I am not saying we have zero influence.

But I will say that we do not have control. Until I see evidence that we can cause or prevent an earthquake or hurricane outright, I will continue to say that such ideas are...silly. I may revise that if you or someone else ever does cause a major earthquake or hurricane but until that day, in my view, its just a silly idea. Sometimes great things come from silly ideas. Sometimes they amount to nothing.

I'm sorry if that 'bias' bothers you.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

I am not trying to claim we have zero influence.

Yes. You have said that many times. And I'll say again, I am not saying we have zero influence.

But I will say that we do not have control. Until I see evidence that we can cause or prevent an earthquake or hurricane outright, I will continue to say that such ideas are...silly. I may revise that if you or someone else ever does cause a major earthquake or hurricane but until that day, in my view, its just a silly idea. Sometimes great things come from silly ideas. Sometimes they amount to nothing.

I'm sorry if that 'bias' bothers you.

I know you've already said you are not making that zero claim ... Sorry if I gave the wrong impression ... I was responding to two concepts, and giving my preference:

#1> "almost impossible to prove or disprove"
So I responded to this concept ... in general it is kind of in the nature of disproving is usually much easier than proving... which is why the vast majority of science is trying to disprove something , not prove it.

#2> "doesn't really get us closer to any understanding of it"
So I responded to this concept ... It is just one step of understanding ... not a whole trip ... And I would say understanding that humans are not 100% is just as important as understanding we are not 0% ... we are somewhere between the two.

- - - - - - -

As for the bias ... It doesn't bother me at all.
Most people have biases and preferences about a variety of things.

I was just pointing out in this case ... the difference between that bias of starting off assuming one way ... waiting for someone to prove something different ... and my point of view ... that we don't yet know one way or the other.

You are not alone ... I'm sure sure there are many people out there to start off with the opposite bias assuming the other direction ... or who start off assuming with the same bias you have.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Absolutely!

O2 can be fatal at a partial pressure of 1 Bar

Let's see if that is a true statement:
1 inch of mercury = 0.03386 bar
Sea Level atmospheric pressure on a standard day = 29.92 inches of mercury.

29.92 * 0.03386 = 1.013207489067664 bar.
Military aviators routinely breath 100% pure oxygen at sea level, which often gets as high as 33 inches of mercury pressure (a "high pressure front" in weather terms.

Thus, your assertion is patently 100% false.

And even a small increase would cause devastating fires

Again false. While it is true that forest fires would burn a bit quicker, that just means that the fuel would be consumed quicker and burn itself out faster.

When you spew falsehoods to support unsupportable claims, it simply makes anything else you say appear to be utter nonsense.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by karlos

Ain't that the truth and certainly in the case of 'big oil'. RIP Gore.

You must be referring to the Marxist media corporations...

[karlos]

Originally Posted by IamIan

You are not alone ... I'm sure sure there are many people out there to start off with the opposite bias assuming the other direction ... or who start off assuming with the same bias you have.

This is equally true for both sides of the debate but unfortunately humans look for 'science' to reinforce their bias, what ever the route cause of the bias and in these times with multmedia outlets it is possible to live in a world which supports and is isolated/insulated from the contrary 'science'.
If new claims come up, some will go first to Anthony Watts and others might go to James Hansen. Some are driven by what they perceive it will cost them to make any changes to the way they live, some are driven by a conservative environmental perspective who see the costs too high if we don't do something about it.
Another level above all this, is adaption/evolution and on this scale the stakes are high although some would argue they are not.
Lets take the sailor at sea, lets say he is very experienced. Half way to Hawaii, he hears on the radio a hurricane is forming two days sail ahead of him. He knows it could dissipate, he knows it could end his sailing days. What's important to him? He knows those who sent out the warning are trained in their field. Is there a commercial aspect? Yes, he is going to pick up some charter crew, he needs to get there. He decides to press on and next day sees on the horizon the typical bad weather clouds. Now there is the first evidence of the theoretical situation. Naturally, he alters course and prepares for the worst, he has nothing to lose by doing this relative to carrying on regardless.
This is the responsibility of the 'captain' to weigh up the possibilities and take care of his crew just as a government is elected to take charge of the big decisions. We all know the results of captains derelict in their duties despite their being differing opinions amongst the crew.

Any government today, in the face of the growing evidence (people in this trhead started out arguing there was no problem in the Arctic) need to chart a different course and if they don't, it is either because;
1) they have not been given a mandate
2) they are being controlled by powerful interested parties
3) they are neglect in their duties

To me, it's simple, we are on the Titanic (everyone on the whole planet ) there are those on board who know about the ice but in their ears are those who want full steam ahead for commercial reasons and there are those back ashore, who have calculated that in the worst case scenario, she is "unsinkable".
It's simple, the price is just too high if the those that deny the AGW warning and growing evidence are wrong and it is 'unscrupulous' to stop those who do want to do something about it, from doing anything and it is criminal of those who pay to knowingly misinform the public.

This is not a case of needing to be 100% certain and never has there been a greater need to apply the 'precautionary principle'.

I would be more than happy to read this thread in twenty years and find we are OK but devastated if we have entered a period of irreversible climate change and my country has been bankrupted by a global economic collapse due severe weather etc.

Sadly, I think we should be well past the debate and all dues to those who think it's there duty to squash any action. I think you have won the debate (if the results of the debate where ever meant to cause some action) and the financial fears voters have of giving a government the mandate to take effective measures.

Can there be any claim to humanity having collective intelligence if it is not until we are literally swimming in the results of our mistakes, that we finally 'get it' and realize we should have made changes? Or will it always be that we only learn from our mistakes.

The debate in this thread is symbolic of what is happening in wider society I think. Whilst those of us who believe there is a need to take action because of what the AGW presents us with are arguing/debating, nobody is doing anything much while the evidence grows and that makes it a waste of time. I am not aware that even one person has or would changed their opinion because of this debate. Maybe we are better informed and maybe we don't argue any more that the Arctic is in trouble but we are told now is the time to take action, not when the evidence is overwhelming.
Since this DIY 'debate' began on 06-06-2009, 12:44 AM, the CO2 level was approx. 386 ppm and now we are told the level is 400ppm, a 1% increase and in 21 years at this rate, that will make it 428pm. It will be a lot more if we don't change as fuel will extracted by more energy intensive methods.
For now, the Titanic is being captained by perceived economic interests and a false confidence that the 'ship is unsinkable'. Time for a change of watch.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

You must be referring to the Marxist media corporations...

Came to my attention because an American I respect a lot, posted it actually and in my observation Gore was right on the money or would you rather squash his and my opinion by labeling us Marxist?
You by your actions validate his very argument.

Going by your past population comments I thought you might agree with him some of the time;
"Think of the earth as a living organism that is being attacked by billions of bacteria whose numbers double every forty years. Either the host dies, or the virus dies, or both die."

[Ziggythewiz]

Can you chart a course away from a storm if you don't know where that storm is? We stand much more to lose from economic collapse that environmental policies contribute to than from global warming.

Also, earth is more like an ecosystem, where more food, shelter, etc encourages population growth, while less of it discourages it. At the same time, your bacteria are constantly finding ways to create more food, use resources differently, and do things better to improve the bacterial way of life.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by Ziggythewiz

Can you chart a course away from a storm if you don't know where that storm is?

A seasoned sailor prepares anyway. A novice does nothing.

Originally Posted by Ziggythewiz

We stand much more to lose from economic collapse that environmental policies contribute to than from global warming.

More than has already been lost by the costs of wars to secure the supply of oil or corrupt financial practices of banks?
Come on, we have to change anyway, oil won't last and we did OK without slavery.

Originally Posted by Ziggythewiz

Also, earth is more like an ecosystem, where more food, shelter, etc encourages population growth, while less of it discourages it. At the same time, your bacteria are constantly finding ways to create more food, use resources differently, and do things better to improve the bacterial way of life.

To some extent yes, but in many ways no. Not my argument anyway, Phantom has made a few comments about population problems in the past so though he might like that quote and find a little more to like about Gore? And to some degree I agree with Phantom, it has not helped we are practicing ever increasing expansion in a finite biological system. There is no balance.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by karlos

Came to my attention because an American I respect a lot, posted it actually and in my observation Gore was right on the money or would you rather squash his and my opinion by labeling us Marxist?
You by your actions validate his very argument.
I wasn't arguing (and would not) that large corporate interests do not influence public opinion. They always have, and always will.

However, in the populist media today which is predominantly owned and controlled by center left to radical left interests, when the word "corporations" is used it is virtually always used to infer an "evil Right-Wing conspiracy."

Frankly, there is absolutely no difference between a business owned by the Koch brothers promoting a Conservative political agenda than the "business" of a Union promoting a Liberal agenda in which Government supports the privilege of said unions to extort money from business owners. Nor is there any difference between Fox News promoting a political agenda than there is with MSNBC, ABC, and CBS promoting THEIR political agenda, save that there are far more such agencies owned and funded (even when they are not profitable, which seems to be the case more often with promoting the Liberal agenda) by those promoting bigger government.

However, the gross misrepresentation of your post is that these interests have as much influence or control as is implied. In fact, whoever is in control of government at the moment has far more power to impact public opinion than any of these corporations. Worse yet, government funds their propaganda with OUR money - which is why the Founders knew it must be kept small lest their power become unduly great and necessarily despotic.

In the end, the powerful and wealthy (including successful business owners, Unions, and senior government officials) have more influence on public opinion than your average Joe sixpack. So what? Of those three groups, only Corporations (and thus their owners) are run by people who actually know how to balance a budget and actually do so. I'd far rather have us follow their lead than to have us led to destruction by those who hold real-world practicality in contempt.

Going by your past population comments I thought you might agree with him some of the time;
"Think of the earth as a living organism that is being attacked by billions of bacteria whose numbers double every forty years. Either the host dies, or the virus dies, or both die."

Think of society as an organism that is being fed upon by parasites whose numbers double every twenty years, and whose weapon to extort their every wish is bigger government. Either the parasites die, or at least are held strictly in check, or both die. In any event the parasites lives are enabled only by suffering of the host.

[Duncan]

Hi Phantom

I Bar of O2 is a chronic killer
- it will kill you - just takes awhile - days or weeks
Been known for a long time

Central nervous system toxicity was first described by Paul Bert in 1878.[102][103] He showed that oxygen was toxic to insects, arachnids, myriapods, molluscs, earthworms, fungi, germinating seeds, birds, and other animals. Central nervous system toxicity may be referred to as the "Paul Bert effect".[14]
Pulmonary oxygen toxicity was first described by J. Lorrain Smith in 1899 when he noted central nervous system toxicity and discovered in experiments in mice and birds that 0.43 bar (43 kPa) had no effect but 0.75 bar (75 kPa) of oxygen was a pulmonary irritant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_poisoning

Acute oxygen poisoning can hit as early as 1.2 Bar - or you may get away with it! -
or you may not

Hans Hass survived dives giving him 1.5 Bar - others died

As far as fires are concerned I was not worried about forest fires

I have seen gas safety videos showing what happens in enriched oxygen atmospheres
The most impressive had burning between the manikin and it's overalls - scary!
It's amazing what burns in an enriched oxygen atmosphere - and how easily it ignites

Elevated oxygen levels are DANGEROUS
This is drummed into anybody who works with oxygen

When you spew falsehoods to support unsupportable claims, it simply makes anything else you say appear to be utter nonsense.

Very True