Ever wonder if the media thinks for itself?
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
except that the rules are based on hard science
Wrong! The rules are 70% unknown. And I am sure you are aware of that if you have followed the subject as closely as I have. :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
You keep using the old "You already know I'm right" argument... Quite arrogant and presumptive, and goes a long way to convincing people that you're wrong.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
You know, a few weeks ago, Bill Maher had a scientist on his show, and they briefly mentioned both Evolution/Creationism and Climate Change... I don't remember the guy's name... I think he was connected with the Natural History Museum or something... But he said, and I really love this quote: "Science doesn't care if you believe in it or not." So yeah, I'm going to be laughing when the last holdouts finally accept the fact that global warming IS happening, and that we're causing it... Actually, they never will... For some reason, people have a hard time grasping events that take more than a year to occur.
wolfbinary wrote:
It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
Guess I can consider myself lucky... When I start a new job, my colleagues are always a bit hesitant (I look rather young), but once I've established my Scotty-type reputation as a miracle worker, my warnings are always taken seriously :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
I can't resist saying it. Sounds like reality to me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;P
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Heh, I know... Isn't it great? :) I actually DID try to change the rules, to encourage some more "fun" behavior... But no matter what I did, they found a way to avoid combat and breed... Natural selection by definition.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're trying to reason with him again? Usually his posts on the subject get ignored because they've been so completely argued out. When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around. The 5th Great Extinction didn't occur all at once one day. It took time. Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true. There is always going to be a portion of the human race that doesn't like change for one reason or another. I've stopped bothering. Like so many problems I see created by short sided narcissistic people, economics and politics trumps solving problems. I guess it's like the Dilbert cartoon. I'm paraphrasing here, "There are those who make problems and those who solve them." I just go around them rather than trying to convince them. It's like at my current job. I can tell them that not putting in this bit of error checking code creates an opening for x or y issue that will occur because of such and such condition. They tell me not to put in the code and then x or y issues occur because of it. Rather than saying "I told you so" I just let them come to the conclusion that the code should be put in. I'm sure I do it too, but at least I'm aware of it so I can try and limit it to the mundane and inconsequential.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around.
Almost every religion with the possible exception of Buddhism makes the same promise. They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
wolfbinary wrote:
Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true.
The very fact that you lump your social agendas together like that should be cause to question your attitude towards Global Warming. For the record, I think that that the state should stop trying to define, support or otherwise control the concept of marriage, smoked pot for the first time in '64, and have serious questions about whether global warming is occurring and grave questions about whether man-made CO2 has anything to do with it. I came to have those questions after originally believing that global warming was a fact and CO2 was causing it because I spent the time and effort to investigate in detail what was being postulated, what proofs were being offered and what solutions were being proposed. Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning. Luckily for the human race, no god has struck down all those who doubt and question in spite of all the outraged demands by those who wish to "rest assured" instead of uneasily thinking, that lightning strike all unbelievers dead on the spot.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
wolfbinary wrote:
When it becomes really apparent to everyone the deniers won't be around.
Almost every religion with the possible exception of Buddhism makes the same promise. They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
wolfbinary wrote:
Rest assured gays will get to marry, pot will be legalized, and climate science will be proven true.
The very fact that you lump your social agendas together like that should be cause to question your attitude towards Global Warming. For the record, I think that that the state should stop trying to define, support or otherwise control the concept of marriage, smoked pot for the first time in '64, and have serious questions about whether global warming is occurring and grave questions about whether man-made CO2 has anything to do with it. I came to have those questions after originally believing that global warming was a fact and CO2 was causing it because I spent the time and effort to investigate in detail what was being postulated, what proofs were being offered and what solutions were being proposed. Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning. Luckily for the human race, no god has struck down all those who doubt and question in spite of all the outraged demands by those who wish to "rest assured" instead of uneasily thinking, that lightning strike all unbelievers dead on the spot.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Oakman wrote:
Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning.
Questioning is good... But have you seen fat_boy's repetitive crap? It's the same arguments over and over, trying to simplify every natural process down to elementary-school science. He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oakman wrote:
They cannot accept the idea that to question those things that are offered up as truth and subject those proofs to rigorous questioning is how mankind has advanced away from the mumbo-jumbo of witch-doctors and soothsayers.
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Oakman wrote:
Luddites, Neanderthals, and True Believers become outraged when someone questions their faith. Scientists, engineers, and logicians welcome the questioning.
Questioning is good... But have you seen fat_boy's repetitive crap? It's the same arguments over and over, trying to simplify every natural process down to elementary-school science. He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Not really. I do not assume that the Pope is always a liar and a fraud (though I suspect that some folks in here would tell me i was wrong) but having looked at the matter of religion quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of every religion (again with the possible exception of the Buddhists) is to frighten, coerce, or otherwise insist that everyone believe in their particular version of a supreme being, and not so coincidently, insure tenure for its priests. Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists. (I remind you that Wolf Binary sees no difference between advancing social goal of gay marriage and advancing what purports to be a scientific theory) In both cases, having found them to be believers rather than doubters (i.e. scientists), I tend to question almost every pronouncement. I very much believe in the truism: Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming. Further, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You fail to see the difference between questioning it, which is a good thing, and just assuming that it's all garbage and that everyone who presents any evidence in support of it is a liar and a fraud.
Not really. I do not assume that the Pope is always a liar and a fraud (though I suspect that some folks in here would tell me i was wrong) but having looked at the matter of religion quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of every religion (again with the possible exception of the Buddhists) is to frighten, coerce, or otherwise insist that everyone believe in their particular version of a supreme being, and not so coincidently, insure tenure for its priests. Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists. (I remind you that Wolf Binary sees no difference between advancing social goal of gay marriage and advancing what purports to be a scientific theory) In both cases, having found them to be believers rather than doubters (i.e. scientists), I tend to question almost every pronouncement. I very much believe in the truism: Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't support his position, and just assumes that everything contrary to that position is based on incompetence, malice, or conspiracy.
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming. Further, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence
Oakman wrote:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Oakman wrote:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
o you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community?
I used them as an examples as I used the Catholic Church as an example. Al Gore, for instance, did not invent the Internet, and his movie, while definitely inconvenient, has been shown to be wrong in so many particulars that it cannot be considered a "truth." The head of the UN's climate research council has admitted to falsifying data. NASA has been shown to falsifying research and hiding results that do not support Global Warming and ditto for NOAH. And so on and so on. At a certain point, one has to begin assuming that those who agree with them are, themselves, refusing to deal with the truth. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, I am justified in thinking it's probably a duck until shown otherwise.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all.
As I said, I've never seen him do so. But I am afraid that fat_boy's lack of social graces in a chat room that once upon a time was known for its tough-mindedness is, for me, neither here nor there. I certainly have crossed swords with him on other issues where we have gone many rounds and taken a certain amount of joy in telling the other one he didn't know what he was talking about. But ultimately, for me, Global Warming is at best an open question and the folks who seek to silence those who question it more reminiscent of those who sought to silence Galileo than those who thought that perhaps an earth-centric view of the universe might not be all it was cracked up to be. Sometimes the Holy Fathers, whether they reside in Rome or East Anglia, are blowing smoke up our collective butt. I have found however, that folks who complain about his rants never seem to avail themselves of the simple option of ignoring his posts, or at least the threads he starts. For the life of me, I don't understand that.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Majerus wrote:
I would love to see one his awesomely researched programs filled with cold hard facts.
I'd be willing to bet that the next one you watch would be your first.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Another bet you lose. His Islamic caliphate and Soros conspiracies are beyond crazy. It give me pause to think you believe that crap.
Majerus wrote:
Another bet you lose.
Frankly, I doubt it. You may indeed, see outtakes on the Daily Kos or Media Matters, but I can't imagine you sitting there for 1/2 hour and watching him without changing the channel.
Majerus wrote:
His Islamic caliphate and Soros conspiracies are beyond crazy
We aren't talking about his theories - or at least I wasn't. I have already indicated that some of his opinions are not believable to me. I was referring to his r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h. department: the people he has dig up verifiable facts that are either unknown to, or ignored by others. I do find it useful, often, to make sure I understand what other people are saying before I weigh in with my opinions, don't you?
Majerus wrote:
It give me pause to think you believe that crap
I doubt that, too. Since the original OP made it clear that I wasn't discussing his theories, I have to assume that you embraced such a ludicrous idea without pausing to think at all. FYI: Until and unless he can someday deal straightforwardly with the idea that many of the Founding fathers were agnostic or deists (look it up, I don't have the time to explain it.) I will have to listen to him for the facts he offers that I can verify independently without paying a whole lot of attention to his interpretation of them. I find, however, that I have no trouble appreciating people who I often disagree with, whenever I see them doing something that is admirable, or at least serviceable. Nothing in my world view says that everyone I am occasionally, or even often am at odds with, is automatically stupid, evil, or not worth paying attention to. This includes Beck, fat_boy, and even you. Have a nice day. I have to go sort socks now, so I shan't be responding to this way out of date thread any longer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Majerus wrote:
Another bet you lose.
Frankly, I doubt it. You may indeed, see outtakes on the Daily Kos or Media Matters, but I can't imagine you sitting there for 1/2 hour and watching him without changing the channel.
Majerus wrote:
His Islamic caliphate and Soros conspiracies are beyond crazy
We aren't talking about his theories - or at least I wasn't. I have already indicated that some of his opinions are not believable to me. I was referring to his r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h. department: the people he has dig up verifiable facts that are either unknown to, or ignored by others. I do find it useful, often, to make sure I understand what other people are saying before I weigh in with my opinions, don't you?
Majerus wrote:
It give me pause to think you believe that crap
I doubt that, too. Since the original OP made it clear that I wasn't discussing his theories, I have to assume that you embraced such a ludicrous idea without pausing to think at all. FYI: Until and unless he can someday deal straightforwardly with the idea that many of the Founding fathers were agnostic or deists (look it up, I don't have the time to explain it.) I will have to listen to him for the facts he offers that I can verify independently without paying a whole lot of attention to his interpretation of them. I find, however, that I have no trouble appreciating people who I often disagree with, whenever I see them doing something that is admirable, or at least serviceable. Nothing in my world view says that everyone I am occasionally, or even often am at odds with, is automatically stupid, evil, or not worth paying attention to. This includes Beck, fat_boy, and even you. Have a nice day. I have to go sort socks now, so I shan't be responding to this way out of date thread any longer.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Frankly, I doubt it
Just another indicator of your closed mind. A constant thread throughout your posts show a complete unwillingness to go beyond your preconceived notions about who you are speaking with.
Oakman wrote:
I was referring to his r.e.s.e.a.r.c.h. department
Yeah that's pretty silly. "He's got fantastic data points, too bad he spins them into crazy theories." I did show my open mind to the issue to discover some great piece of his that highlights this awe inspiring reseach dept, but you can't do that.
Oakman wrote:
to make sure I understand what other people are saying before I weigh in with my opinions, don't you?
I know exactly what you are saying and it isn't that "I watch him for his reasearch." I'm sure that's what you told your mom when she found your copies of Hustler. And his research team? They don't show anything beyond a passing ability to use Google.
Oakman wrote:
I find, however, that I have no trouble appreciating people who I often disagree with
That you can "appreciate" Beck is still quite disturbing. His pieces are insane, regardless of the quality of the "research". Is still gives me pause that you can appreciate anything about him. That he is directly implicated in 5 instances of right wing terrorism puts him completely beyond the pale.
Oakman wrote:
Nothing in my world view says that everyone I am occasionally, or even often am at odds with, is automatically stupid, evil, or not worth paying attention to
Actually, I see that behavior in you quite often.
Oakman wrote:
I have to go sort socks now
I hope you have more success with that than you have here.
Oakman wrote:
so I shan't be responding to this way out of date thread any longer.
Thanks for admitting your failure to make your case.
-
You keep using the old "You already know I'm right" argument... Quite arrogant and presumptive, and goes a long way to convincing people that you're wrong.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)How is it arrogant and presumptive to assume that you already know of the IPCC graphic that shows 4/5ths of factors affexting climate having a "very low level of scientific understanding"? If you havet looked into this dont turn your ignorance into an accusaiton of arrogance.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
How is it arrogant and presumptive to assume that you already know of the IPCC graphic that shows 4/5ths of factors affexting climate having a "very low level of scientific understanding"? If you havet looked into this dont turn your ignorance into an accusaiton of arrogance.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Which part of them have this "very low level of understanding?" Are they categorized as a "very low level" because we don't understand WHY they behave the way they do? Because that would just as easily describe gravity. We know precisely how it affects the universe, but we still don't know why it's there. Are they significant enough to matter? If we know that the air is 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, and contains a few dozen other gases, we can know 98% of the equation even if most of the factors aren't understood. Are these less understood factors related to the causes or the effects? It's common knowledge that we don't know exactly how GW is going to affect things, because the system is just too complex to completely predict. Just as we can tell what the weather will be like tomorrow, but can only make educated guesses about what it'll be like two weeks from now. (Yes, I know weather and climate are two completely different things - This was just an analogy) Details matter.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Which part of them have this "very low level of understanding?" Are they categorized as a "very low level" because we don't understand WHY they behave the way they do? Because that would just as easily describe gravity. We know precisely how it affects the universe, but we still don't know why it's there. Are they significant enough to matter? If we know that the air is 78% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, and contains a few dozen other gases, we can know 98% of the equation even if most of the factors aren't understood. Are these less understood factors related to the causes or the effects? It's common knowledge that we don't know exactly how GW is going to affect things, because the system is just too complex to completely predict. Just as we can tell what the weather will be like tomorrow, but can only make educated guesses about what it'll be like two weeks from now. (Yes, I know weather and climate are two completely different things - This was just an analogy) Details matter.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Take a look at the IPCC grapghic that sys this, you will get an idea of just how unknown these factors are.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Oakman wrote:
Likewise, having looked into the issue quite carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose behind most of the utterances of the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia is to frighten, coerce, or or otherwise insist that everyone embrace their social agenda, and not so coincidently insuring tenure for its climatologists.
So you think a government-sponsored research team represents the entire scientific community? What about all of those other groups that have come to similar conclusions? Are they all liars and frauds because you don't trust the motives of one group?
Oakman wrote:
The latter doesn't make him wrong, and I know for a fact that he has no problem with my view that the question is still open and the waters are being deliberately muddied by a group of political activists who are more interested in the distribution of wealth than in the truth of global warming.
Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't lend any credence to his argument either. Most of his recent arguments seem to be along the lines of "Come on, you know I'm right." I was actually on the fence with AGW until fat_boy came along... I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?).
Oakman wrote:
urther, I have not read anything from him that states definitively that the earth will not grow to be warmer than it is now, only that the proofs offered are not rigorous and the predictions made up until now have been shown empirically to be false - which is not to say that he may not done so, simply that I have not caught him at it.
He fluctuates between claiming the science isn't enough, to claiming that the planet isn't warming at all. One step to the side, and he'll be in the same boat as CSS, claiming that it's all a vast conspiracy by the new world order and the buildaburger group. I've gotten tired of actually doing research to debate him, since he just ignores anything he doesn't like, and keeps spouting the same tired arguments. He's forgotten that real scientists don't just question the consensus... They question their own arguments as well.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?)
Then we are in accord, and in accord with many scientists. We will see some warming, but not as much as the alarmists say, not by a long stretch. So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact. So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people. A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
fat_boy wrote:
The reason I gave the google searchlink is because every single site ran the story with almost exactly the same same text, that was my point, the media just reprint word for word some release, including the headline, bu some scientific (special interest) group.
That's how all the news outlets work... The Associated Press (Or similar) releases a story... The major papers pick it up on their feeds... If they aren't giving it any special attention, they just post it verbatim. The blogs just syndicate what they see in the major papers, so that'll be verbatim too. It's not some vast conspiracy... It's just how data travels.
fat_boy wrote:
OK, as it turns out the story itself is all about using computer models to prove a theory. Whcih of course is junk science because they can be programmed to prove any damn thing you want, such as Martians being behind extreme rain.
Just because people program the models, doesn't mean they already know what the results will be. You tell the model the "rules" of how things interact... You feed it the inputs as you've observed through sensors and the like... Then you start the model and see how it all balances out. Haven't you ever built a simulation? I played around with genetic programming a few years back... Made an RPG-style dungeon thing... Generated a maze and put a bunch of stupid AIs in it... Gave them "DNA" that determined their behavior and stats... Set the rules for movement, combat (Two warring factions), and reproduction (Male + Female in the same square + Survive until birth while female has combat penalties)... I had no idea what would happen... I just set the rules, turned it on, and watched the little colored dots moving through the maze... In the end, evolution outsmarted me... I expected them to develop a good mix of "stats" and "skills" for combat, maybe figure out how to protect the breeders, etc... But within a few dozen generations, all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the GuardiansIan Shlasko wrote:
all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Actually, sounds lke you managed to model the French. Hmm, think you might have stumpled onto somethign there, ever thought of ppublishing? :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I started doing some research, and came to the conclusion that AGW is probably correct, and only the degree is in question (How much will it warm? What effects will it have and when?)
Then we are in accord, and in accord with many scientists. We will see some warming, but not as much as the alarmists say, not by a long stretch. So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact. So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people. A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact.
The temperature increase is only the initial effect... Changing the amount of energy in the atmosphere can cause all sorts of adverse effects, and THOSE are the ones we can't predict accurately. More severe weather is likely, along with some shifting climate patterns. The question is where and how much.
fat_boy wrote:
So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-Good-for-Plants-Another-Red-Herring-in-the-Climate-Change-Debate.html[^]
fat_boy wrote:
A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
all they did was wander randomly until they bumped into the opposite gender, then sat there constantly reproducing... And if they DID run into a combat situation, both sides would immediately run away instead of attacking.
Actually, sounds lke you managed to model the French. Hmm, think you might have stumpled onto somethign there, ever thought of ppublishing? :)
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
So, how much? Well, Lindzen says 1.2 degrees at the most based purely on physical principles. As for measured evidence, well, there isnt any. Its impossible to measure any increase due to CO2 against natural variability. And thsts a fact.
The temperature increase is only the initial effect... Changing the amount of energy in the atmosphere can cause all sorts of adverse effects, and THOSE are the ones we can't predict accurately. More severe weather is likely, along with some shifting climate patterns. The question is where and how much.
fat_boy wrote:
So, where does that leave us? CO2 is good for plants, and thus people
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-Good-for-Plants-Another-Red-Herring-in-the-Climate-Change-Debate.html[^]
fat_boy wrote:
A dgree of temperature rise will only bring us back to the MWP/holcene maximum. So why limit its production?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)We have been through this before, and pulling a cople of links off the internet that fly in the face of established science does not constitute any kind of refutation. Fact. C02 is good for plants. Period. Farmers have ben using it for decades OK. Fact. THe last 10,000 years, this interglacial, has seen a steady cooling from temperatures a few degrees higher than today.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
can cause all sorts of adverse effects
Ian Shlasko wrote:
More severe weather is likely
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here? Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures. I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
We have been through this before, and pulling a cople of links off the internet that fly in the face of established science does not constitute any kind of refutation. Fact. C02 is good for plants. Period. Farmers have ben using it for decades OK. Fact. THe last 10,000 years, this interglacial, has seen a steady cooling from temperatures a few degrees higher than today.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
can cause all sorts of adverse effects
Ian Shlasko wrote:
More severe weather is likely
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here? Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures. I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
We have been through this before
Which is why I'd rather just post a link instead of going through the same argument again... Seems only fair, after your repetitive postings of the same boring anti-GW sites.
fat_boy wrote:
Look how you have gvone from 'can', to 'is likely'. Dont you see a problem with your logic here?
No, because as I said, we don't know the exact effects.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course the fact that we have lived through, and in fact human society evolved, at higher temperatures is amp[le evidence that nothing untoward will happen if we regain those temperatures.
http://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm[^]
fat_boy wrote:
I am not interested in debating this any more Ian. You know that I have the weight of established science on my side, you have nothing but alarmist gueswork on yours.
There's that "You know I'm right" argument again... Except in all this time, you haven't proved your side at all. You've just tried to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)