Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Your retreat into inanity is counterproductive to discussion and I chose not to play your childish game. Believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest...no skin off my back.

That so called retreat into insanity was simply mirroring back to you how you think. It's you identifying it as insane. I would just say you don't know how to logically think. You need to stop putting your interpretation of my words in your mouth and listen harder and think more.

FYI?the word I used was "inanity" not "insanity"?perhaps you're simply mirroring back to yourself how you think. Can you not see the folly in your little games?

Are you accusing me of being lisdexic? And asking me to see the folly of my games is folly. You just bleat. Define the games I play so we can see them. Don't you ever tire of your little poo poo flings?

Moonbeam plays games, neener neener. Jesus, grow up.

All I ask is that you make an attempt to discuss your position as clearly as possible for those of vastly inferior intelligence...such as I...who have difficulty understanding your apparent psychobabble...which I'm sure makes perfect sense to you. Please condescend to those...such as me...who are much less enlightened than yourself. In layman's terms...please cut the crap.

Lol at 'poo poo flings'...all I did was to hold up that little mirror of yours that you so love to bandy about. Apparently there's a subconscious aspect to lisdexicia.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Your retreat into inanity is counterproductive to discussion and I chose not to play your childish game. Believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest...no skin off my back.

That so called retreat into insanity was simply mirroring back to you how you think. It's you identifying it as insane. I would just say you don't know how to logically think. You need to stop putting your interpretation of my words in your mouth and listen harder and think more.

FYI?the word I used was "inanity" not "insanity"?perhaps you're simply mirroring back to yourself how you think. Can you not see the folly in your little games?

Are you accusing me of being lisdexic? And asking me to see the folly of my games is folly. You just bleat. Define the games I play so we can see them. Don't you ever tire of your little poo poo flings?

Moonbeam plays games, neener neener. Jesus, grow up.

All I ask is that you make an attempt to discuss your position as clearly as possible for those of vastly inferior intelligence...such as I...who have difficulty understanding your apparent psychobabble...which I'm sure makes perfect sense to you. Please condescend to those...such as me...who are much less enlightened than yourself. In layman's terms...please cut the crap.

Lol at 'poo poo flings'...all I did was to hold up that little mirror of yours that you so love to bandy about. Apparently there's a subconscious aspect to lisdexicia.

I thought I went to rather great lengths to explain my self and was still met with incomprehension. But if there is anything about what I said that troubles you I will try again. I don't believe a word I said about you being an idiot. But I need more than stuff like the folly of my little games.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: inspire
Ad Hominem, Consensus, the altar of peer review, politics, righteousness - forget all that. Show me a competent alpha-level test of 0.05 that returns a significant fixed effect from a model that makes sense and can be validated.

Cut the crap.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being, the global warming folks and the global cooling crowd have no such evidence yet.

The inspire implied crap is that failing that compelling model, we should accept only the global cooling minority as being right.

And meanwhile back at the ranch, the global warming folks have compelling evidence that current conditions are unprecedented in the last 150,000 years, and the global cooling folks have almost nothing to back their explanations except some doubts.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought I went to rather great lengths to explain my self and was still met with incomprehension. But if there is anything about what I said that troubles you I will try again. I don't believe a word I said about you being an idiot. But I need more than stuff like the folly of my little games.

This:

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ah, Now I see. But here's the problem. You want to criticize me but yet you claim that the world is flat. So you see, right off the bat you're going to lose this argument.

And look at our names. Who would know more about science, a Doc Savage Fan or a Moonbeam. I don't even know who Doc Savage is, but everybody knows that what moonbeams. So again I'm in the majority and you lose. My teeth are doubtlessly whiter too as measured on a spectrograph so my is much more winning.

And as for you ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves, there's no evidence to support it.

So you haven't a chance when you argue with me when I argue for you and you just make me laugh when you try to do it to me.

When and if you ever get to first base come and see me.

How can I respond to this when I can only guess at your meaning? I'm not advocating a 'flat earth'. Looking at your name comparison diatribe, you're either stating your belief that you think your opinion is superior...or possibly that neither of us have valid opinions as you make inconsequental comparisons. And lastly, I have no clue as to what you're trying to say when you said that I made a ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves...apparently an allusion to something that's well beyond by small brain.

You know...communication is tough enough as it is without the folly of your 'color'. I perceive it as a game for you...but in reality...for less enlightened folk like me...it only serves to obfuscate the issues and makes rational discussion impossible.

 

[jonks]

Exxon (EXXON!) has admitted GW is real. It took the tobacco co.s about 5 decades to come around. Time to give up the ghost.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jonks
Exxon (EXXON!) has admitted GW is real. It took the tobacco co.s about 5 decades to come around. Time to give up the ghost.

All the US Oil Corps openly admitted GW as real in Canada and elsewhere many years before admitting it in the US. Which should cause Americans to really think about what that implies.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PJABBER
PJ posted to say to Moonbeam: If you are completely unqualified to competently evaluate the science, then why are you a true believer to begin with?

M: I am completely untrained to evaluate the science of global warming but I am persuaded by a lifetime of living with the benefits of scientific light cast into the world, lo these many years since the enlightenment when people began to test their ideas with experiment and observe the world without preconceived ideas. I am impressed by science and am a partisan of the scientific method. Science has impressed me so much it's made me a believer.

PJ: Belief usually starts with a kernel of knowledge and experience and then proceeds with insight.

M: Yup my knowledge came from a scientific education, my experience in daily living with the practical applications science has provided, and the insight to see that it is indeed science that granted us these boons.

PJ: There are those who achieve enlightenment without taking the hard path, but that path is what most of us must follow.

M: These are of course words that may have different meanings for you than they do for me. One piece of advice that I received was this:

There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart.

But there is, I believe a brand of pure mental Yoga that attempts to go straight to truth that way, a fast route for those who have that capacity, so I hear.

At any rate, in my own small way the truth I arrived at came when the path I was on ended in the black hopelessness of despair and there was no alternative for me but to die there. I discovered there was no path and never had been. There is only the ocean of being.

PJ: We should not be ruled by the herd, for the herd knows not where it goes. It is pushed as though by the wind and by its own fear and greed.

M: Quite so. Scientists, however, are a unique herd. They are the experts in using science to know the nature of reality. They don't have a herd mentality, they have a methodology.

PJ: I am not an advocate for any one of the many sides in the scientific discussion. I am always surprised when that accusation against me is made on this forum. I am arguing that it is foolish to close one's mind off from the opportunity for enlightenment. And worse if all that can be claimed is that the herd rules the mind and the soul.

The scientific herd rules science. It is an open minded herd. To me it the ego that seeks enlightenment because the ego exist as a defense to protect the true self from harm. What the ego does, I'm afraid, is to seek to be a better ego, a better defense mechanism. To become enlightened isn't anything but ceasing to identify with the false self by becoming the real.

PJ: I have learned much by being a Skeptic. My world view is formed by questioning until enlightenment. I do not claim to full enlightenment and I do not ascribe to the pride of certainty. That is why I am not a true believer and it is why I seek the minor entertainments of discourse on this forum.

M: I know nothing and for my skepticism I paid the price of doubting everything I was ever taught and held dear. In exchange for nothing I paid everything.

PJ: I do appreciate and value the ugly challenges that are made by so many here. They provide a welcome stimulus for me to dig ever deeper into topics that I know only in passing. I enjoy the research that I do in order to offer a rational reply, even if the original comment is made to insult and to belittle. The gain is mine, but I do try to share. It is my nature.

M: Liberals love people who share. With you I will share all the nothing I have, if you can carry it.

 

[Moonbeam]

DSF: How can I respond to this when I can only guess at your meaning? I'm not advocating a 'flat earth'. Looking at your name comparison diatribe, you're either stating your belief that you think your opinion is superior...or possibly that neither of us have valid opinions as you make inconsequential comparisons. And lastly, I have no clue as to what you're trying to say when you said that I made a ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves...apparently an allusion to something that's well beyond by small brain.

M: I wanted you to experience what I experience when you say stuff very much like that to me, stuff I never said at all. I was trying to show you by example what I experience when you characterize me as saying stuff I never said. It wasn't supposed to make any more sense to you than what you said does to me.

DSF: You know...communication is tough enough as it is without the folly of your 'color'. I perceive it as a game for you...but in reality...for less enlightened folk like me...it only serves to obfuscate the issues and makes rational discussion impossible.

M: An ounce of demonstration, they say, can equal a ton of argument, but I guess one has to understand the demonstration.

I am going to try to remember in future, since you will pursue a matter, that I should be more tolerant of your misguided reactions to my works and more patiently try to explain to you what you might not at first understand. Most folk just try to slime me and then go away, but you seem more genuinely interested in debate. It helps in any dialog that you do not punch the person you want to talk to in the nose and you do have that tendency, I think. That can bring out the jabber in me. I have learned in a life of crime that when folk attack you and you don't respond they are sure it means you are weak and then they proceed to peck at you till you have to flatten them and we don't want that.

 

[Red Squirrel]

haha global cooling.

How about we just all call it climate change.

I noticed in past 10 years or so our winters have come hotter, and our summers have come colder. Soon they will just equalize. There have been some expetions to this here and there but in general if I was to graph each year's everages it would probably show that it's evening out. For example I recall as a kid getting at least 8-10 feet of snow, and HUGE snow banks over my head and twice higher again. I mean, it was actually a hazard to play on them as falling could result in broken bones. That's how high these were. Snow piles from plowing the driveway were over the roof. Summers were also very hot. +25's +30's most of the summer.

Now, we get maybe 3-4 feet of snow, we still get our month of straight -45's but it's now moved from January to February, and while winter seems to drag on longer, it starts later and is not as cold and snowy as before. I remember having snow by Halloween and it stayed. Now we usually only get our first permanent snow in December! (not that I'm complaining). Then there's our summers. We're lucky to have a +25 day now. In fact last year and this year has averaged at maybe +15 and more like +10 if you trim off the extremes as we still get the occasional +30 but it's RARE. (none in past 2 years). WAY more rain too.

So yeah, I just call it climate change now, not global warming, not global cooling. Of course it all varies from region to region.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I believe ice still melting . But for last 2 years my little part od the world has been cooler for fact.

Tho I noticed the change right away . The thing that got me is cloud cover . 2 years in a row now . Much much more cloud cover than any period in my lifetime. Fall winter of 07 is when I noticed more cloud cover and its increasing. My part of town In Mn had 6 small tornados go threw . Much damage . I don't think I lost A leaf off of tree. and we were hit. All my neibors lost both sides of me and front and rear on all four sides . I never flinched one bit . Than again what do I have to fear ? Death . hardly. Further N . they were hit harder . I watched the hole thing . The Thunder head that spawned them was like nothing I have ever seen . A single thunderhead ya had to see to believe. I believe there is 1 good utude of that thunderhead.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: How can I respond to this when I can only guess at your meaning? I'm not advocating a 'flat earth'. Looking at your name comparison diatribe, you're either stating your belief that you think your opinion is superior...or possibly that neither of us have valid opinions as you make inconsequential comparisons. And lastly, I have no clue as to what you're trying to say when you said that I made a ridiculous claim that all the heat from the earth is hiding in caves...apparently an allusion to something that's well beyond by small brain.

M: I wanted you to experience what I experience when you say stuff very much like that to me, stuff I never said at all. I was trying to show you by example what I experience when you characterize me as saying stuff I never said. It wasn't supposed to make any more sense to you than what you said does to me.

DSF: You know...communication is tough enough as it is without the folly of your 'color'. I perceive it as a game for you...but in reality...for less enlightened folk like me...it only serves to obfuscate the issues and makes rational discussion impossible.

M: An ounce of demonstration, they say, can equal a ton of argument, but I guess one has to understand the demonstration.

I am going to try to remember in future, since you will pursue a matter, that I should be more tolerant of your misguided reactions to my works and more patiently try to explain to you what you might not at first understand. Most folk just try to slime me and then go away, but you seem more genuinely interested in debate. It helps in any dialog that you do not punch the person you want to talk to in the nose and you do have that tendency, I think. That can bring out the jabber in me. I have learned in a life of crime that when folk attack you and you don't respond they are sure it means you are weak and then they proceed to peck at you till you have to flatten them and we don't want that.

I've tried to be civil with you throughout this discussion. I may jab at you to make a veiled points with words like "bleat" and "pedestrian"...which are subtle references to your 'go with the consensus' mentality without regard to opinions and concerns raised by others. You're obviously unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion as illustrated by some of your comments to others like:

"Fuck your stupid shit ass opinions. I don't want the human race to die because of shit head contrarians like you."

"You are biased by your imbecility and don't understand what he said."

"You used to shit and piss in your pants and have the IQ of a chimp so nobody is going to listen to you."

"Your opinion isn't worth shit."

...and those directed specifically at me like:

"You're just a biased idiot because there is nothing at all in the world of logic that would cause you to think as you do."

"You are a fanatic who is pissed that I won't share in your delusions"

And then you have the chutzpah to complain that I should "not punch the person you want to talk to in the nose and you do have that tendency". There is nothing I can say except that I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my "little poo poo flings"...I mistakenly thought you wouldn't be offended...no malice intended.

I'm curious...have you ever thought of why you're so compelled to post on this subject?

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: inspire
Ad Hominem, Consensus, the altar of peer review, politics, righteousness - forget all that. Show me a competent alpha-level test of 0.05 that returns a significant fixed effect from a model that makes sense and can be validated.

Cut the crap.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being, the global warming folks and the global cooling crowd have no such evidence yet.

The inspire implied crap is that failing that compelling model, we should accept only the global cooling minority as being right.

And meanwhile back at the ranch, the global warming folks have compelling evidence that current conditions are unprecedented in the last 150,000 years, and the global cooling folks have almost nothing to back their explanations except some doubts.

I didn't mention Global Cooling, and I didn't mean to imply anything about it. I clearly see that if AGW is unproven, then AGC certainly isn't proven, either. This is how modelling works - I do it for a living. Models are tested and validated, and if you can show a specific component to be significant at an alpha level of 0.05, and the component can be interpreted as something in the real-world (i.e. not some squirrely latent variable), then you have a defensible conclusion, provided that test is robust.

Until that onus of proof is met - the same one use by virtually all other sciences and regulatory agencies, yes, I'll have doubts. Once it gets there, I'll support it, but right now, I'm keeping an open mind, and I think it's healthy for everyone else to do so as well.

Am I clear now? Was this just a general misunderstanding, or were you intentionally trying to be a wanker?

 

[LunarRay]

Them there horde of scientists blathering about warming and or cooling are stuck at the bridge of Not Knowing What They Don't Know... There may be more of them accepting one Theory over another based on the same or similar data but that to me is cuz they have exhausted their ability to find truth. That there can be two polar opposite views to the same issue seems ripe for argument or the niceties of debate.

Me thinks there are many other issues that regardless of which of the heating/cooling camps finally win out make that issue in the long term sorta moot. At the end of the day... assuming the sun can't go Nova.. we will freeze... (in about ten or so billion years, I guess) but before that happens I'm sure we'll be visited by some rather large Asteroid/Comet travelers that will renew our belief in stored foods.. Plate tectonics and the resultant belching of stuff in an explosive event not to mention the Earth's Magnetic switching that will make the Sun's ones rather passive, seem much more interesting.

I don't know what I don't know either and expect that sooner or later we'll find a virus that's mutated to some form enabling it to be the sole earthly survivor... But sure, Moonbeam and the consensus have their points... fix what we can... while we can... that makes sense regardless of the threat... Why not? Isn't that what Congress is for... to find places to pour your tax pennies.. and Educate the populace and stuff like that..

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I think his argument is that the people he is talking to are no less ignorant. Due to his ignorance on the topic he chooses to accept the opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field. Deniers choose to accept the opinion of a small minority of experts in the field.

Which position is more reasonable?

Blindly attacking any dissenting opinion on the basis of ignorant faith is not a reasonable position.

Siding with the consensus is not ignorant faith. It's the logical intellectual position. Assuming you're not a climatologist, why do YOU choose the illogical intellectual position?

He can't get it out of his mind that I am attacking the science or the reality that there is a minority opinion which I am not intellectually competent to evaluate when in fact I a merely saying that given a scientific question with majority and minority views, I think that people like myself who have no real capacity to judge, if they are scientific in their thinking at all will trust the science of the majority. Science IS the opinion of the majority. When majorities change their opinions I change with them. I am not committed to global warming for any other reason that that I go with the majority in science. It's just plane fucking logic to me, and there are a number of other dudes here, shira and eskimo, as two examples who share a similar mentality and who always seem to see almost everything like I do. My guess is it's because for some reason or another we think critically. Must be that public education.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am a person of faith. I'm a true believer. I go with the majority of scientific opinion. It's just how I think.

What do you call that besides blind faith?


And don't pretend you know me or my position on the issue. You're trying to lump me in with some group of "deniers." That's the whole problem. Not everyone agrees fully with both sides.

People have become so entrenched in choosing sides that an open scientific debate is almost impossible. I want both sides to stop with the name-calling and accusations. I want more open-mindedness from both sides. Each has valid points that are ignored by the other.

But most of all, I want people to stay quiet if they have nothing constructive to add. It's hard enough to sift through all the noise as it is.

You continue to evade the central question, so let's put the question in a really, really general way:

Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything.

Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

 

[PJABBER]

You continue to evade the central question, so let's put the question in a really, really general way: Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything. Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

That is not the central question, but you alluded to it in the way you set up your question.

The question is "How do you synthesize a very large body of study of possible influencing factors in climate change and then act on that synthesis?"

You do not have many scientists in the field speaking definitively at this time unless they have a political impetus.

There is a National Academy of Science synthesis due out in about two years.

America's Climate Choices

The final report will provide clear, analytical, policy-relevant (but not policy-prescriptive) answers to these and other important questions. The costs, benefits, limitations, tradeoffs, and uncertainties associated with different options and strategies will be described qualitatively and, to the extent practicable, quantitatively based on the detailed analysis provided in the panel reports and other sources. The report should be authoritative yet concise and useful to decision makers, and should provide targeted, action-oriented advice on what can be done to respond most effectively to climate change at different levels (e.g., local, state, regional, national, and in collaboration with the international community) and in different sectors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, the business community, the research and academic communities, individuals and households, etc.).

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: shira
You continue to evade the central question, so let's put the question in a really, really general way:

Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything.

Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

That was never the question I was asking.

I was simply asking why Moonbeam is so very vocal about a topic he admits to having very little knowledge of.

 

[Moonbeam]

DSF: I've tried to be civil with you throughout this discussion. I may jab at you to make a veiled points with words like "bleat" and "pedestrian"...which are subtle references to your 'go with the consensus' mentality without regard to opinions and concerns raised by others.

M: You have no idea how sensitive I am and how easily you can hurt my feelings.

DSF: You're obviously unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion as illustrated by some of your comments to others like:

"Fuck your stupid shit ass opinions. I don't want the human race to die because of shit head contrariness like you."

"You are biased by your imbecility and don't understand what he said."

"You used to shit and piss in your pants and have the IQ of a chimp so nobody is going to listen to you."

"Your opinion isn't worth shit."

...and those directed specifically at me like:

"You're just a biased idiot because there is nothing at all in the world of logic that would cause you to think as you do."

"You are a fanatic who is pissed that I won't share in your delusions"

M: Those looked pretty intelligent to me.

DSF: And then you have the chutzpah to complain that I should "not punch the person you want to talk to in the nose and you do have that tendency". There is nothing I can say except that I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my "little poo poo flings"...I mistakenly thought you wouldn't be offended...no malice intended.

M: Would you do me a favor? I wasn't bothered by you, don't be bothered by me.

I'm curious...have you ever thought of why you're so compelled to post on this subject?[/quote]

M: Sure, when a potential disaster is approaching the people who advocate doing nothing are dangerous. People who pay no attention to the scientific consensus risk getting us all killed. I don't like people who would do that. I think about all the children who will have their happiness ruined.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira
Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything.

Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

A is likely to be more correct at this point, just like Newton's version of gravity was correct...until Einstein came along.

The point being, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past. There are plenty of valid arguments being made that A might not be correct. Until we know for sure it would be stupid to react in a knee-jerk fashion. Right now all we can do is take small steps to reduce CO2 emmissions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira
Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything.

Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

A is likely to be more correct at this point, just like Newton's version of gravity was correct...until Einstein came along.

The point being, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past. There are plenty of valid arguments being made that A might not be correct. Until we know for sure it would be stupid to react in a knee-jerk fashion. Right now all we can do is take small steps to reduce CO2 emmissions.

The fact that science has been wrong in the past isn't a point at all. Imagine the reaction of a pre-Einstein driver of a car headed for a brick wall having his passengers shout, 'no knee jerk reactions please', it could be that space is curved and we are going to miss and there's plenty of valid arguments that say so.

The problem with your argument is that there will always be scientific uncertainty about everything and your desire to wait for further data is your personal opinion influenced by the type of person you are, by how much, say, the lives of other people matters to you in relation to how much you pay in taxes and factors such as partisanship, or factors which relate to testosterone levels and your need or lack thereof for stimulus or your love of bravado, etc. But whatever the reasons for your cavalier attitude, it is not rational and has nothing to do with logical thinking.

Science will always be what it is today and should be even better tomorrow. Science today says it is getting warmer and that fact is a gigantic threat. As LunarRay, who has ultimate faith and worries not at all about the future, points out, 'we know not the day or the hour', but he who trusts in God first also ties his camel.

The scientific consensus is that human activity on the planet is effecting the climate, that man made climate change is a fact. The issue as to what to do about it is a complete and total different subject. Scientists do not rule the world. The totally insane do, folk who worry more about getting elected and how much money they might have then going out on any limb they can't understand or see to spend huge sums to save the planet. That scientifically illiterate imbeciles rule the world and will lead us straight to extinction is something I have know since I was seven years old.

You cannot eat tomorrows bread today.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: PJABBER

You continue to evade the central question, so let's put the question in a really, really general way: Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything. Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

That is not the central question, but you alluded to it in the way you set up your question.

The question is "How do you synthesize a very large body of study of possible influencing factors in climate change and then act on that synthesis?"

You do not have many scientists in the field speaking definitively at this time unless they have a political impetus.

There is a National Academy of Science synthesis due out in about two years.

America's Climate Choices

The final report will provide clear, analytical, policy-relevant (but not policy-prescriptive) answers to these and other important questions. The costs, benefits, limitations, tradeoffs, and uncertainties associated with different options and strategies will be described qualitatively and, to the extent practicable, quantitatively based on the detailed analysis provided in the panel reports and other sources. The report should be authoritative yet concise and useful to decision makers, and should provide targeted, action-oriented advice on what can be done to respond most effectively to climate change at different levels (e.g., local, state, regional, national, and in collaboration with the international community) and in different sectors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations, the business community, the research and academic communities, individuals and households, etc.).

You don't need to wait two years to know what's going to be said. They will report that the ship is sinking and the money available for action will allow rearranging the deck chairs.

It's like I said from the beginning: There are too many jobs at stake to save the world. Like an alcoholic driver with his bottle resting on his leg, there will be no knee-jerk reactions when that wall appears. "No fucking way I'm gonna spill my beer."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: shira
You continue to evade the central question, so let's put the question in a really, really general way:

Suppose you have 10,000 brilliant people who are evaluating an issue, on which there are two opposing positions. They engage in fact finding over a period of years, and after 15 or 20 years, an announcement is made: 9,000 of this brilliant crowd believe in position A, whereas the other 1000 think position A is incorrect. The issues being evaluated is so complex, so filled with apparantly conflicting information, you yourself cannot possibly hope to understand everything.

Now, which position do you think is more likely to be correct, A or not-A?

That was never the question I was asking.

I was simply asking why Moonbeam is so very vocal about a topic he admits to having very little knowledge of.

It's quite simple. A bunch of foolish folk here are asking me to play Russian Roulette with a gun with one empty chamber instead of one bullet in it. And I don't have to be a gunsmith or a gun powder chemist to figure this out.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: I've tried to be civil with you throughout this discussion. I may jab at you to make a veiled points with words like "bleat" and "pedestrian"...which are subtle references to your 'go with the consensus' mentality without regard to opinions and concerns raised by others.

M: You have no idea how sensitive I am and how easily you can hurt my feelings.

DSF: You're obviously unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion as illustrated by some of your comments to others like:

"Fuck your stupid shit ass opinions. I don't want the human race to die because of shit head contrariness like you."

"You are biased by your imbecility and don't understand what he said."

"You used to shit and piss in your pants and have the IQ of a chimp so nobody is going to listen to you."

"Your opinion isn't worth shit."

...and those directed specifically at me like:

"You're just a biased idiot because there is nothing at all in the world of logic that would cause you to think as you do."

"You are a fanatic who is pissed that I won't share in your delusions"

M: Those looked pretty intelligent to me.

DSF: And then you have the chutzpah to complain that I should "not punch the person you want to talk to in the nose and you do have that tendency". There is nothing I can say except that I'm sorry if I somehow offended you with my "little poo poo flings"...I mistakenly thought you wouldn't be offended...no malice intended.

M: Would you do me a favor? I wasn't bothered by you, don't be bothered by me.

I'm curious...have you ever thought of why you're so compelled to post on this subject?

M: Sure, when a potential disaster is approaching the people who advocate doing nothing are dangerous. People who pay no attention to the scientific consensus risk getting us all killed. I don't like people who would do that. I think about all the children who will have their happiness ruined.

Rest easy...I'm not bothered by you?just confused by the way you handle yourself and how you deal with others. But I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to you and I'll just leave it at that?life is short and I know futility when I see it.

Back on topic?look at it this way?a large animal is coming towards you and you're backed against the edge of a cliff. Several people in the area say that a tiger is coming to eat you?you look down the cliff and think you can survive the fall and it sure beats the hell out of getting mauled and eaten alive by a ferocious tiger. But there's a small child in the crowd who says?that's not a tiger that's coming?it's my pet dog Fido?he wouldn't hurt a flea. Now the crowd screams for you to jump NOW before it's too late. So what do you do?jump and hope you don't get hurt too bad by the fall or wait a couple seconds and take a second look to see whether a man eating tiger is actually coming your way or if it's just a child's harmless pet?

Yeah?I know?it's not a great analogy?but you should get the gist. In the next 2 years we should have a much better idea of the impact of GCR on our climate and whether a tiger is coming or not. Many recent studies indicate that the potential impact of GCR is huge. FYI, the IPCC report doesn't address the GCR mechanism and, as such, may have grossly underestimated the impact of extraterrestrial forcing (IIRC the current estimate is about 7%). CERN is currently replicating and expanding upon previous experiments on a much larger scale to understand this mechanism better. Preliminary indications do not bode well for the current consensus opinion of the IPCC. BTW, CERN isn't a bunch of crackpot scientists?they have some of the best scientists in the world.

Isn't the prudent thing to do is to inch close to the edge of the cliff...but not actually jump and risk serious injury until you know for sure what kind of animal is approaching?

 

[monovillage]

The question has been answered. Senator Stabenow can feel climate change and global warming as she's flying. http://community.detnews.com/a.../index.php?blogid=2041 Whewww, i'm glad this weighty problem has been solved by Americas political leadership.

 

[LunarRay]

Doc Savage,
Interesting analogy

I sort of see it like this: A small boy walking toward that man on the cliff edge seems to have a rather large and vicious dog with him.... The man asks '' Does your dog bite ?" and the small boy responds... "No, he don't." Relieved, the man relaxes until that dog rushes him and attacks with great vigor... Now, nearing death the man exclaims, "I thought you said your dog don't bite!".... "He don't!" responds the small child.... "but, that ain't my dog!!"

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Doc Savage,
Interesting analogy

I sort of see it like this: A small boy walking toward that man on the cliff edge seems to have a rather large and vicious dog with him.... The man asks '' Does your dog bite ?" and the small boy responds... "No, he don't." Relieved, the man relaxes until that dog rushes him and attacks with great vigor... Now, nearing death the man exclaims, "I thought you said your dog don't bite!".... "He don't!" responds the small child.... "but, that ain't my dog!!"

Good one! Thanks for the laugh!