palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
no, it's not.. and you know it.
see how that works?
the jury is still out on GW, as to whether or not it's even partially man-made, and the scales have NOT tipped in either direction... at least for those of us who are being intellectually honest on the subject.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
What in the HELL are you talking about!?
I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a believer in creationism, or a member of any organized religion. If anything, I'd consider myself well on my way to being the polar opposite of a creationist.I've stated as much at least one hundred times around here. For lack of any better description, I'm a Deist who believes more in the yet to be proven string theory than in any other form of written religious Dogma. I use the word "God" as the object of my personal "prayers" whenever I attempt to connect with, or influence, the energy found throughout the Universe.
I derive more of my personal dogma from Hawking, Brian Green, or Thomas Paine, than from any whacked out "prophet" in mankind's history.
I also believe that the Big Bang is the best theory, thus far, to describe the origins of our universe (and life).
I'm certainly no creationist...
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
What in the HELL are you talking about!?
I've stated as much at least one hundred times around here. For lack of any better description, I'm a Deist who believes more in the yet to be proven string theory than in any other form of written religious Dogma.
So spread your fucking FUD elsewhere son.
Sorry, I think I had you confused with that guy with "rider" as part of his name.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: palehorse74
What in the HELL are you talking about!?
I've stated as much at least one hundred times around here. For lack of any better description, I'm a Deist who believes more in the yet to be proven string theory than in any other form of written religious Dogma.
So spread your fucking FUD elsewhere son.
Sorry, I think I had you confused with that guy with "rider" as part of his name.
apology accepted.
but ya, that certainly isn't me... please see the edits to my last post for a better description of my own personal beliefs.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I think you missed the point.
1. The hockey stick graph was based on a model that gave the same result no mater what you typed into it. They essentially created a model that produced the same result every time.
2. A lot of members of the GW crowd are out there creating models that will produce a predetermined result. They know what they want the end results to be so they craft a model that will produce that result. Over the years they all created these models that show the Earth's temperature slowly rising. But then along comes 2007 in which the temperatures actually drop, and by quite a bit and all of a sudden all their models are worthless. So they sit around and try to figure out how to explain the sudden drop in temperature. Which leads us to the recent 'discovery' that the Earths oceans may actually cause some cooling for a few years, but then run away Global Warming will return...
Now perhaps this new theory is correct, or perhaps like all the other models it is wrong.
And for the record I do believe in evolution. I took Historical Geology as my science with lab class. It is essentially the study of life and includes a LOT of stuff about changing temperatures, ice ages and mass extinctions. So I have a decent starting point when I starting reading these articles.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
War on Drugs does more harm than good and only compares to the WoT in terms of wasting money
Republicans do not want to do anything about Protecting the Environment because they are only for CORPSEorations.... and PROFIT
Conservation =| Profit in their eyes...
Republicans do not want to do anything about Protecting the Environment because they are only for CORPSEorations.... and PROFIT
Conservation =| Profit in their eyes...
I guess I was giving you too much credit.
You are trying the age old dodge of "well neither side has proven their claims yet so they are both equal". That's a complete falsehood. In any legitimate analysis of two points of view you not only look at what is certain, but what is probable. From the scientific evidence that thousands of scientists have spent millions of man hours accumulating, it is vastly more likely that mankind is contributing to the warming of the planet then that we are not. To discount that and equate it to a viewpoint with a tiny fraction of the support is an insult to those men and women who have spent so much of their lives working on this. This means that view has more merit to it by virtue of the vastly larger amount of evidence and professional opinion behind it then the view that questions if mankind is 'even partially' behind it. So, don't give me your false equivalence crap.
In addition, to say that the jury is still out on if mankind is even partially behind it is shockingly dishonest. That is such a fringe idea that to somehow equate the two is ridiculous. I can't believe you even attempted an appeal to intellectual honesty after a sentence like that.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Nice straw man...
The debate is not about resources and pollution. The debate is whether we spend billions of dollars to combat something that might not actually exist.
For the record:
going green = great
spending money to fund alternative energy = great
reducing our use of fossil fuels = great
spending billions of dollars chasing 'mandates' so we can feel good about ourselves = bad
Get over yourself, PJ There's no question about whether global warming is real, except in the fridged vacuum between your ears, and there's no question that human beings are the major cause of it. If we don't mandate action, now, by the time the majority of idiots who either are so uninformed that they don't know it's coming, and the majority of self-centered idiots who deny that it's happening will have forestalled action until it's too late to do anything to save our planet.
Unless you've got another one all prep'd and ready to handle the entire population of the planet AND the means to get everyone there, continuing to spew your bullshit makes you a menace to humanity.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:roll: Climate change is real - that is all that is known. MMGW has NOT been shown to be real. Some are saying the warming has stopped and that we're on a cooling trend for the next decade or more. But you folks keep spewing your MMGW religion and we will continue to point and laugh at your willing ignorance.
His argument is that the money that could be better spent on reducing our debt, investing in productive industries, cough cough paying for children's education, is instead wasted.
Whether on things critics say are unnecessary wars, unworkable 'space defense systems', tax cuts for the wealthy, corrupt Medicare big Pharma laws - it's the same argument.
If a trillion dollars is spent solving a problem that's not a problem, the money is wasted.
It's like the old joke about selling something to protect you from tiger attacks in downtown Manhattan - hey, you didn't get any attacks from a tiger, did you?
I think your counter-argument is that the spending has other benefits regardless for the environment and economy.
So, you two are talking past each other - PJ sort of conceding some points as vaguely as possible to not have to defend some of the indefensible, but pointing out that some of the spending can be wasteful, and you arguing with the premise that all the spending has benefit - but you two aren't addressing the same thing, and so it's not going anywhere.
It seems like the question you both want to talk about requires specifics, for you to debate whether they're wasteful as PJ says, or beneficial/worth the risk as you are saying.
Ugh, but the paper that said that stated the underlying mechanics of CO2 causing global warming have not changed. It's amazing how you can accuse people of willing ignorance after ignoring that fact.
It's like if you put new insulation in your house for winter, but don't notice it getting any warmer because you left the AC on somewhere. As soon as you turn it off (as they say the ocean current business is only temporary) your extra insulation is still there. I don't know why I'm even explaining this to you and Pro-Jo though. You put ideology before science.
They say Al Gore eats stem cells for breakfast. They say he's also going to take all your light bulbs away. Did you know he burns bonfires in his back yard? They say his hair gel is actually petroleum jelly and he owns several Hummers. Fox News said it was true.
Global Warming has become as meaningless an expression as 'The War on Terror'.
Mingling scientists' assertion of a long-term temperature rise or cooling with the hysterical claims of apocalyptic preachers has debased the expression. Bush used this same conflation tactic to justify invading Iraq.
I think everyone knows the earths climate is changing. I believe it's a natural phenomenon.
Whatever is happening with climate change, it is a mixture of natural and man made effects. That does not matter, it is certainly wise to reduce the man made causes.
What will happen ? No one can say for sure. How much do we need to reduce man's interference ? No one can say. Is 75% enough ? How would it be possible to make such a change ? Given that one of the major causes is overpopulation, how is a real change possible ? I am pessimistic about sufficient action.
Presumably, we may have to live with considerable climate change. What will it be ? That is not known. One possibility is the beginning of a new ice age. That could happen if the oceanic flows like the Gulf Stream are stopped by the introduction of much fresh water from melting ice. How long would that take ? Also unknown. The change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age came quite rapidly and caused much starvation in Europe. It seems that the Little Ice Age began with several years of very heavy rain which caused the grain crops in Europe to fail.
Of course, another possibility is a much warmer climate with rising ocean levels, and the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere acts like a blanket to keep in more heat.
Remember the adage "Science advances one funeral at a time." Many people think that science moves based on a deliberate and careful consideration of the facts leading to a a sole logical conclusion. Not so! Anyone who has been in the scrum of scientific endeavor knows that the process is more caucusing until a quorum is reached.
There is, however, a reverence for experimental procedure and any data thereby produced. That's why so many scientific arguments have to do with validating or invalidating data and analysis.
The fun with global warming is that very many laymen have strong opinions about the science without knowing or understanding what is going on inside the scrum of science. I, on the other hand, realize I haven't the expertise to form an opinion based on the data. I have to pass the arguments through my bullshit detector. When I look at the arguments from each side I see mostly poor arguments, bickering, and name calling.
Alas, regarding the terms "Global Warming Fanatic", "MMGW religion", "denier" and "skeptic". I prefer to be labeled a "heretic". It has the right religious overtones.
Global Warming has become as meaningless an expression as 'The War on Terror'.
Mingling scientists' assertion of a long-term temperature rise or cooling with the hysterical claims of apocalyptic preachers has debased the expression. Bush used this same conflation tactic to justify invading Iraq.
I think everyone knows the earths climate is changing. I believe it's a natural phenomenon.
Whatever is happening with climate change, it is a mixture of natural and man made effects. That does not matter, it is certainly wise to reduce the man made causes.
What will happen ? No one can say for sure. How much do we need to reduce man's interference ? No one can say. Is 75% enough ? How would it be possible to make such a change ? Given that one of the major causes is overpopulation, how is a real change possible ? I am pessimistic about sufficient action.
Presumably, we may have to live with considerable climate change. What will it be ? That is not known. One possibility is the beginning of a new ice age. That could happen if the oceanic flows like the Gulf Stream are stopped by the introduction of much fresh water from melting ice. How long would that take ? Also unknown. The change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age came quite rapidly and caused much starvation in Europe. It seems that the Little Ice Age began with several years of very heavy rain which caused the grain crops in Europe to fail.
Of course, another possibility is a much warmer climate with rising ocean levels, and the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere acts like a blanket to keep in more heat.
Remember the adage "Science advances one funeral at a time." Many people think that science moves based on a deliberate and careful consideration of the facts leading to a a sole logical conclusion. Not so! Anyone who has been in the scrum of scientific endeavor knows that the process is more caucusing until a quorum is reached.
There is, however, a reverence for experimental procedure and any data thereby produced. That's why so many scientific arguments have to do with validating or invalidating data and analysis.
The fun with global warming is that very many laymen have strong opinions about the science without knowing or understanding what is going on inside the scrum of science. I, on the other hand, realize I haven't the expertise to form an opinion based on the data. I have to pass the arguments through my bullshit detector. When I look at the arguments from each side I see mostly poor arguments, bickering, and name calling.
Alas, regarding the terms "Global Warming Fanatic", "MMGW religion", "denier" and "skeptic". I prefer to be labeled a "heretic". It has the right religious overtones.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,967
- 140
- 106
The Fraud of Global Warming: True C02 Record Buried Under Gore
by Laurence Hecht Editor, 21st Century Science & Technology
The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre-1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from 1857 to 1957. [1]
Unfortunately for the liars at the IPCC, the measurement of atmospheric CO2 concentration had been a special focus of chemists since that early 19th Century elaboration of the process of photosynthesis, and their carefully recorded measurements remain with us. The inconvenient truth is that Al Gore still exists, but only fools and Presidential "front-runners," so named for the ample leaks of bodily fluids from their anterior orifices, give serious credence to his emissions.
To concoct a convincing case of such correlation requires ample, sophisticated lying, and the greenhouse theorists have been caught at it. By a delightful historical irony, it could be said that it is the founder of modern science, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), who has caught them. Our modern understanding of photosynthesis began when the Flemish researcher Jan Baptist van Helmont took up Cusa's challenge (stated in the "De Staticis" section of his Idiota de mente, the Layman: About Mind) to weigh a plant and its soil before and after growth. Van Helmont discovered (circa 1620) that the soil supporting a willow tree, which had grown to 169 pounds in five years, had changed weight by less than a few ounces. Whence did the solid mass of the tree derive? Ironically, Van Helmont, who had introduced the word "gas" to science, mistakenly concluded that the plant's mass had come solely from the water applied.
It took almost two more centuries to uncover the astounding fact that much of the mass of the plant, and all of its structural backbone, derives from the invisible and apparently weightless air, most especially the carbon dioxide component of it. That was the achievement of the revolution in chemistry launched by Lavoisier, and pushed forward by Gay-Lussac, Avogadro, Gerhardt, and others at the beginning of the 19th Century. The ability to place two invisible gases in a balance and compare their weights, proved to be the secret to the determination of atomic weights, and from that the unlocking of the secrets of both the atom and the cell.
Text
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Apathy by the average Joe whenever scientists say something the next time around. Having trust in the scientific method be undermined. Rushing into making bad decisions for combating climate change.
Look at the entire ethanol industry. Food prices are rising because corn is being put into cars instead of into people and livestock. Other crops are being replaced by corn, and forested land is being cleared for the same purpose. The push for "bio-fuels" is part of an effort to go green and find renewable, sustainable sources of fuels. This is completely misplaced. My fear is that when the earth cools significantly over the next few decades due to lower sunspot activity, this will cause the general public to decide that the GW people (and by extension, scientists) don't know anything about what's going on. This means less funding, less trust, etc.
I don't listen to much that nutritionists say. Years ago potatoes were one of the best foods for you. Then some study came out to show that they weren't good for you and should be avoided. Then they were good again, then not bad, but not really as good as the last guy thought. I think they're back in the good books now. The national food guide keeps getting updated and changed to the point where the new guy looks at the old guy's version and tells everyone that the old guy had no idea what he was doing. As a result, I don't really listen to nutritionists and just go with what I think is healthy and good for me. Did you know mustard is a carcinogen?
The alarmist attitude bothers me as well. Is there an ideal climate? Is it necessarily bad that we might be warming the planet up? Why should we try to stop change? Throwing billions of dollars into something that might or might not have an effect is not wise IMO. Solar research is good. Alternative fuels research is good. Nuclear fusion research is good. Higher food prices, carbon credits, carbon taxes... not so good.
I worry for myself as a scientist when I try to tell someone not familiar with my field that something I'm doing is important, deserves funding, could change the world etc, because there exists the possibility that they might not believe me because "those other scientists were wrong".
I just read this article today. Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?
The most interesting part is that NASA is going back and changing old data to make GW look real.
Who's in charge of NASA's date? "Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming."
The most interesting part is that NASA is going back and changing old data to make GW look real.
Who's in charge of NASA's date? "Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming."
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I have better things to do than be preached at for more than 10-15 minutes. It's quite enough. If they've yet to convince me that they were separating anything from anything after 10-15 minutes, they suck at separating. In that time they spent 100% on those in support of the hysterics we see these days about GW.
Yep, I'm just another fvcking idiot without a clue. Although I can list literally dozens of ways in which, in just the last few decades, mankind has had various hysterical fears, all proven to be wrong, I should not use any of that paradigm here. Further, I should ignore such inconsequential things like habitual and vast errors in models, the inability of the weather man to tell me what it will be like in three days let along three years, and the fact that the world has been cooling for 1998. I must be such a moron!
Of course not. That has no relevance to the classical manmade GW stance which is that we're all killing the environment, it's going to be worse off when it warms, and we need to do something asap and something really massive to ward that off.
I will not be patronized by somebody with a PhD who's looking for grant money or a celebrity driving his prius to his jet. There are plenty of idiots who think GW is a big joke, just like plenty of idiots who don't. There are, thankfully, some pundits on both sides. Objectively the evidence does seem to support the classical GW stance, though it's hardly overwhelming, and until somebody can actually convince my why the models that have been utterly useless to date are going to be better in the next decade, I'd be abdicating basic reason to jump on board this train like any other zealot.
I see three things we need to answer 1) What impact are we having (nobody has a f**king clue, let's be honest about that), 2) Will it be a net benefit or negative (99% of what I hear is negative, which makes no sense whatsoever), 3) Can we do anything about it (unanswerable until we know 1) and must also be taken into the context of 2)).
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
But you ignore the fact that none of that proves MMGW. Did man cause the current "pause"? If so - how?
The only ones putting ideology before science are the MMGW zealots. I am waiting for the science - the MMGW kool-aid drinkers think it's settled science when it's no where close.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter