Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
Cancer can be 100% confirmed. Global warming is a best guess kind of thing.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
So there is a consensus on global warming huh?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Right, but I'm not sure that's any less damaging to the environment than if we were the ONLY cause of global warming. While nature is pretty robust when it comes to adapting to changes in the environment, that adaptation takes time...speeding up the frequency of temperature changes may be just as damaging as increasing the amplitude of the changes. My point was that our effect on the climate is really a separate issue from what is happening naturally. Clearly natural climate changes is an important issue as well, and deserves ample study, but it should not be confused with the effect WE are having on the climate. Even if your beachfront properly may eventually end up under water, that does not mean human activity can't hasten that eventuality, and it doesn't mean that human activity can't have OTHER negative effects. You're right in the sense that a lot of people probably don't realize that climate change ALSO happens naturally, but it seems a lot like a red herring to introduce that particular fact into a debate about man-made climate change.
Your question marks you as one of the worst fear mongering BS'ers on this forum, and I question your scientific credentials to post such piss poor bullsh8. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
Vic -- You're usually pretty bright, but that's got to be one of the stupidest things you've ever posted. Tell us how glad you'll be when you see sea levels rising enough to wipe out a few costal cities on every continent.
There are only two possiblities.
1. If human activity is causing or increasing the rate of global warming, and we do nothing, we're screwed, and humanity will have only itself to blame for the consequenses.
2. If human activity is not causing or increasing the rate of global warming, and we take steps to mitigate it, we may or may not be able to ameliorate the consequenses, but we will definitely reduce pollution. In either of those cases, at least, we will have tried to minimize the potential dangers, and we will have developed new technologies that will improve our overall quality of life. And just for grins, we'll probably create a lot of new jobs in those emerging fields.
Bottom line -- Doing nothing is the losing bet, regardless of the causes or the outcome.
Actually, your second argument brings up a far more important point than climate change. The actions that are thought to cause man-made climate change are something we should get rid for a lot better reasons than climate change. It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong about global climate change, we only really have one obvious course of action in either case.
Really I think the whole argument is a proxy debate, for both sides. For the conservationist folks, it's a good way to scare people into doing what they should be doing anyways. Global warming sounds scary, and it makes a much better argument than the other ones you can make in favor of not buying that F-250. Not because it IS a better argument, but because it's easier for a lot of people to grasp. And by the same token, it's a proxy argument for the anti-conservation folks as well. A lot of people really want to buy that big studly truck, so they justify it by trying to argue that global warming isn't being caused by their vehicle choice...the idea being that this MUST mean it doesn't matter what you buy.
I don't support the Galileo-like treatment of many scientists that is practiced among brainwashed members here, but it's also wrong to use incorrect sources to make your claim. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that the National Registry of Environmental Professionals is not an organization that specifically deals with climate related issues. Some of its members may deal with issues such as that, but that organization includes people that have no scientific knowledge that could be of use here. It seems to be a mix of a wide number of professions, many of which are not scientists. Wastewater management, environmental codes, etc.
How does a company's Environmental Health and Safey Coordinator's opinion matter in this issue?
How does a company's Environmental Health and Safey Coordinator's opinion matter in this issue?
flexy
Diamond Member
i dont even read the thread...just the subtitle already got me going...
"Yet again the truth is not what the GW crowd wants us to believe."
Your problem is that you are obviously so closed minded that you can only see B/W....the typical REP/DEM thinking with totally inability to have a stance in between or hear arguments from EITHER side.
"The GW crowd" is a really, really stupid term. Your use of TERMS already limits YOU in your own thinking...since you obviosly only chose to belong either in ONE category or in the other.
"wants us to believe"...
Who is "us" ? You ?
In addition of course added paranoia "...wants us to believe.
If there were people with halfway a brain out (which, sadly, is NOT)...there would be no strict border between "GW crowd" and "moderate believers" or "deniers" as you believe (even PROMOTE)...because thats all very childish BS.
All parties would benefit from hearing arguments from the others and not argue with nonsense like "the one side wants us to believe".
This alone proves extremely inability on your side (probably far more than only regarding the GW subject)..and thats also one reason why the political system in the states reflects the same thinking: EITHER...OR....no diversity and nothing in between. You are either REP or DEM..with everything which belongs to it and the known stereotypical thinking and mindset. Really, really lame 😉
Btw...the IRONY:
You yourself argue with the hope "when we can return it to the scientific community".......how scientific are you then ? A real scientist certainly should be abstinent of ANY bias...and alone your thread title/subtitle is the MOST biased/unscientific ever...
"Yet again the truth is not what the GW crowd wants us to believe."
Your problem is that you are obviously so closed minded that you can only see B/W....the typical REP/DEM thinking with totally inability to have a stance in between or hear arguments from EITHER side.
"The GW crowd" is a really, really stupid term. Your use of TERMS already limits YOU in your own thinking...since you obviosly only chose to belong either in ONE category or in the other.
"wants us to believe"...
Who is "us" ? You ?
In addition of course added paranoia "...wants us to believe.
If there were people with halfway a brain out (which, sadly, is NOT)...there would be no strict border between "GW crowd" and "moderate believers" or "deniers" as you believe (even PROMOTE)...because thats all very childish BS.
All parties would benefit from hearing arguments from the others and not argue with nonsense like "the one side wants us to believe".
This alone proves extremely inability on your side (probably far more than only regarding the GW subject)..and thats also one reason why the political system in the states reflects the same thinking: EITHER...OR....no diversity and nothing in between. You are either REP or DEM..with everything which belongs to it and the known stereotypical thinking and mindset. Really, really lame 😉
Btw...the IRONY:
You yourself argue with the hope "when we can return it to the scientific community".......how scientific are you then ? A real scientist certainly should be abstinent of ANY bias...and alone your thread title/subtitle is the MOST biased/unscientific ever...
The problem with your statement is that it fails to recognize the money-interested (and politically motivated) parties on the other side that deny scientists' finding.
None of that really matters though as long as the scientific evidence brought forth are legitimate/peer-reviewed/etc.
But please continue on and act as if it's the 17th century...
CycloWizard
Lifer
In science, the two issues are intertwined. In policy decisions, they are definitely different, but they still cannot becompletely isolated because of the common effects. For example, if I were legislating for how to deal with the effects of global warming (e.g. coastal flooding), then I have to deal with both natural and anthropogenic causes together. If I were legislating to try to minimize anthropogenic effects, then I would consider the issues separately. So, as always, it comes back to how you want to frame the debate and what exactly you're trying to achieve.
The reason I made this observation in my original post was really to suggest that the reason for the scientific 'confusion' on the pathogenesis (if you would) of global warming is that the anthropogenic and natural causes are intricately coupled. This implies that lots and lots of data and well-designed experiments are needed to decouple their effects. In fact, this has largely been accomplished already, but unless you're actively following the literature in the area, you wouldn't know this. Further, unless you're a scientist specializing in these fields, you wouldn't understand really what's going on and might easily be confused by these random articles that insist scientists don't really know what's going on when, in fact, they pretty much do.
No, it doesn't; it treats them as irrevelant when the scientific consensus is there for the position, while you rely on the monied interests for buying a few stragglers, mostly.
Only 17th century logic here is yours. You have said zero to counter the leading scientists' findings and yet you say they're wrong for concluding what they did.
Wow, I didn't know that I relied on them. Why would I need to say anything to counter any scientists' findings when I don't oppose them? You yourself have said zero to counter any scientist other than your demonisation statements.
I don't care particularly for the issue except for the demonisation of legitimate scientists that luddites such as yourself express (and the advancement of colonialism used under cover of related issues).
I would continue to say that the 17th century logic is yours, but I think something like 8th century may be more appropriate.
Jeff7
Lifer
Except that now there are billions of sentient life forms messing with the natural balance.
Secondly, alright, Earth does go through natural thermal cycles. The problem is, some of these cycles would interfere with our comfortable little lives. That's why it's a problem. It won't render us extinct. It could just cause numerous inconveniences, at least in the grand scheme of things - in that larger context, famines due to unusual weather patterns could be considered inconveniences. In the micro scale, they're called "disasters."
And since Earth does already go through natural cycles which could interfere with our lives, it's probably best that we not tip the scale even farther off balance.
Let's not forget police officers, pharmaceutical companies, trash collectors, anti-virus software programmers, or any of the other industries devoted to cleaning up our lives or fighting otherwise undesirable elements.
How about uncertain diagnoses or new diseases? Mental illnesses can also be tough to classify or even diagnose. Does that invalidate them as well?
StageLeft
No Lifer
The funny thing is, if the world was cooling, I'm positive we'd have people up in arms about how awful it's going to be, but now that it's warming (which it is, but I am not losing sleep over the entire thing right now), suddenly we're all screaming about how the end of the world is nigh, as if RIGHT NOW the overal climate of the planet is perfect. I rather doubt it is. I never hear of the benefits of global warming...always flooding, hurricans, blah blah blah, never increased crops here or more arable climates there. Most people don't know sh*t. At least some of us appreciate we don't know sh*t and those who do pretend they know it aren't helping 🙂
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
I'm a wedge shot from the ocean. I'm not complaining. 😀
CycloWizard
Lifer
This comparison doesn't really work. Doctors, police officers, pharma companies, trash collectors, programmers, and all of these others are not subject to political mandate of their funding. Researchers rely almost exclusively on the government for basic research funding through NIH, NSF, EPA, or whatever funding agency you like (mostly NSF and EPA in this case). The special areas of interest are decided upon by congress and are primarily funded. Further, your competitors are the ones reviewing your grant applications. If I write a perfect proposal in support of position A but the reviewers subscribe to current theory B and we assume that there is currently insufficient data to discriminate between the two, the reviewers may unequivocally reject your proposal because you're essentially taking money from them and/or their colleagues. Thus, it's hopelessly naive to suggest that there are no politics involved in scientific research. Stating that one side is in an ivory tower of scientific purity while saying that the other is full of industry-paid shills is simply demonstrative of ignorance in the funding process.
JD50
Lifer
Again, you're missing the point. I didn't say that Al Gore is "pro-global" warming because he makes a living off of his BS about man made global warming. I was responding to Bowfinger saying that Crighton writes fiction for a living, implying that he can't have a valid opinion about global warming since fiction writers obviously aren't scientists. Well Al Gore sure as hell isn't a scientist, so how can he have a valid opinion about GW if a fiction writer can't, especially since he benefits monetarily from people being scared to death of the earth warming.
You should try making an actual argument instead of writing paraghraphs upon paragraphs about absolutely nothing and blaming everything on "the right". While you're at it, what was bowfingers argument? Maybe you should go scold him for not "making an actual argument".
Bowfinger
Lifer
You should learn to read better. I did not address Crichton's global warming beliefs. I pointed out Crichton's opinion on whether one can have a consensus in science is meaningless. ("The point is that Crichton declaring there is no such thing as consensus science is just as meaningless as Xman declaring it, or you declaring it." I don't know how to make that any clearer for you.) Therefore, Xman's post was irrelevant to the discussion, as were your replies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
