Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Another Global Warming Thread

Another Global Warming Thread (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2012, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
"Posting info": is that now the definition of "making an argument or supporting a position by simply posting articles on external websites with zero comment or commentary?" Oh...because that's, you know...not allowed here.
No, "posting info" means we can make our own interpretation of the parts of the articles that represent his opinion. Because he didn't tell us, I'm assuming it's these parts:

"glaciers in other parts of the Himalayas are losing mass - which also is the global trend."

"Late last year, the Kathmandu-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod) released data showing that across 10 regularly studied glaciers, the rate of ice loss had doubled since the 1980s."

"Measurements by the GRACE satellite mission, which detects minuscule variations in the Earth's gravitational pull, have also shown a net loss of mass across the whole region."
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 08:55 AM
 
Thank you for making my point in a more reasonable manner.

Edit: I guess I just tend to get very, very annoyed now when people merely post non-conclusionary articles without comment. Regardless that it's a violation of the Pol Rules that no mod seems to care about enforcing, it's just plain lazy, in my view. Make a comment. Say what you think this article means. Tell how this piece reinforces your opinion(s). Just say something, so people can figure out the point of what you're trying to say, rather than (as demonstrated above) reading an ambiguous article and then thinking "okay...so....what?"
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; Apr 18, 2012 at 09:19 AM. )
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2012, 09:16 AM
 
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2012, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Why did you lol? Did the knowledge that cows and dinosaurs produce methane gas in large quantities make you lol?

Is this something that:
a) you didn't know before this time?
b) makes you giggle like a teenager who's just heard someone say "fart"?
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2012, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Why did you lol? Did the knowledge that cows and dinosaurs produce methane gas in large quantities make you lol?

Is this something that:
a) you didn't know before this time?
b) makes you giggle like a teenager who's just heard someone say "fart"?
I found the article funny.
Yes.
a) I didn't know that they produced 5 times as much methane as cows do annually, no
b) Yes, I giggle like a teenager when I hear someone say fart.

I am between 35 and 40 years of age.
Male.
I own 2 cars, my own home and I have 2 kids under the age of 18.

I'm touched that you want to know so much about me, and my feelings, but I do have limits about what information I post on public internet forums.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I am between 35 and 40 years of age.
Male.
I own 2 cars, my own home and I have 2 kids under the age of 18.

I'm touched that you want to know so much about me, and my feelings, but I do have limits about what information I post on public internet forums.
I didn't ask for any of this information - you provided it entirely of your own accord, for some strange reason.

I don't care about your age, your house, or your kids.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2012, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I didn't ask for any of this information - you provided it entirely of your own accord, for some strange reason.

I don't care about your age, your house, or your kids.
The hostility of certain members is starting to get out of hand again, it seems.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2012, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The hostility of certain members is starting to get out of hand again, it seems.
Oh hai, it's the requisite Loose-Change Self-Righteous Shaddim® comment.

I'll tone down the "hostility" when you or mattyb actually contribute something worthwhile to talk about in this thread. Oh wait....I forgot....that's too much to ask. Well then. Carry on.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Oh hai, it's the requisite Loose-Change Self-Righteous Shaddim® comment.

I'll tone down the "hostility" when you or mattyb actually contribute something worthwhile to talk about in this thread. Oh wait....I forgot....that's too much to ask. Well then. Carry on.
You guys continue being jerks and I'll continue my self-righteous tone. Which is to say, if you retarded asshats acted more like OAW and less like hyteckit/screener this place wouldn't suck as much.

G'day.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I'll tone down the "hostility" when you or mattyb actually contribute something worthwhile to talk about in this thread.
I'm sorry that you don't find information about dinosaurs farting worthwhile. Maybe this sort of study goes to show that we really have a long way to go before we understand man's impact on global warming, the interaction of the sun, the seas and oceans and maybe even passing comets.

As far as your questions go, my loling has nothing to do with Global warming. So your post was worthless.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 06:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't need an article to tell me that starting about twenty years ago we where told that the "science" was irrefutable that if we didn't do something drastic, we'd be burning up in 20 years.

We didn't. It hasn't happened.

I also don't need an article or new data to remember being told back in the late 70's/ Early 80's that if we didn't do something drastic, we were all going to suffer due to a lack of warmth due to extreme cooling.

We didn't. It didn't happen.

Yes, "climate" changes. It always has, even without man's involvement. For the most part, it doesn't seem that we need to do or not do anything to keep the cycle going. At the very least, the "chicken little" predictions can be ignored, absent something better than "models" which pretty much give a very broad prediction that could include just about anything. We've been guessing that there was going to be a disaster for at least a half century. First one way, than another. I'm betting that the sky is not falling, and I think that most everyone else who doesn't have a political agenda is betting the same. If "science" wants to be taken seriously, those who practice it needs to keep it out of politics. That hasn't been the case in regards to "global warming" or "climate change" (as it's now being repositioned due to previous claims being proven false.)

The world will warm, and it will cool.

So, can these silly threads on imagined disasters just stop?
Good grief. You've said some silly things before but you may have outdone yourself again here.

Political agendas should be informed by the science. If the science is conducted to further an agenda, its not science, its propaganda. Guess what? Scientists are not infallible. Modelling a ~10^50 atom system is seriously tricky stuff.

I've probably said it before but if you don't want to take "science" seriously, then you really shouldn't be on the internet. No computers for you. No phones or cars, no central heating or cavity wall insulation, no indoor plumbing, no furniture, no walls, windows or roof tiles, no knives or forks. You should just go outside and live in a hole in the ground (which you'll need to dig with your bare hands). Actually, a hole would provide you shelter so thats out too. And clothes. Even animal skins since science cannot help you to keep warm no matter what you do. In fact, even eating or breathing are chemistry and biology so I guess thats it for you. So long.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 07:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You guys continue being jerks and I'll continue my self-righteous tone. Which is to say, if you retarded asshats acted more like OAW and less like hyteckit/screener this place wouldn't suck as much.

G'day.


That knife cuts both ways. This place wouldn't suck as much if you didn't act like exactly like Kevin and contribute absolutely nothing to this thread besides snide "Yeah!" and "What he said!" comments - that is, unless you're jumping in feet-first supporting some sort of climate-change-skepticism article or video and then disappearing when it inevitably turns out to be 75% fake or incorrect.

Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I'm sorry that you don't find information about dinosaurs farting worthwhile.
It's been known for decades that dinosaur methane output would've been tremendous. All this "study" does is put a headline-worthy guesstimate number on it. It doesn't in the least try to account for any other number of climate variables that existed 65 million years ago - such as, you know, the continents not even being in the same place.
Maybe this sort of study goes to show that we really have a long way to go before we understand man's impact on global warming, the interaction of the sun, the seas and oceans and maybe even passing comets.
How in the hell do you reach this conclusion? How does it show anything about man's impact on global warming, or our understanding of it? It's a straight-up calculation based on cow methane output and dinosaur size and estimated numbers, for cryin out loud. If anything, the only conclusion we can take from this study is that it shows man's knowledge of its impact on global warming - after all, all you've provided us is the fact that we know our GHG emissions, we know cows' GHG emissions, we know how GHG emissions affect global temperature, and now apparently we know the GHG emissions of massive animals that lived 65 million years ago.

Yes, that's right - it shows the exact opposite of what you says it does. What a shocker.

As far as your questions go, my loling has nothing to do with Global warming. So your post was worthless.
Yes: your loling has everything to do with the fact that you're completely ignorant about this subject, but yet apparently still feel the need to contribute your ignorance to any such discussion.


Look, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant on this subject. There's nothing wrong with not giving a flying fack whether the world freezes, burns, or stays exactly the same. But why do the both of you (amongst the other usual suspects) continually feel the need to misdirect or otherwise act like non-contributing zeros when it comes to this subject?

Most of us would appreciate something worthwhile. An article - tell us what you think. A comment - some sort of expansion on a topic.

Nope. None of those things from you two.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
It's been known for decades that dinosaur methane output would've been tremendous. All this "study" does is put a headline-worthy guesstimate number on it. It doesn't in the least try to account for any other number of climate variables that existed 65 million years ago - such as, you know, the continents not even being in the same place.
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
How in the hell do you reach this conclusion? How does it show anything about man's impact on global warming, or our understanding of it? It's a straight-up calculation based on cow methane output and dinosaur size and estimated numbers, for cryin out loud. If anything, the only conclusion we can take from this study is that it shows man's knowledge of its impact on global warming - after all, all you've provided us is the fact that we know our GHG emissions, we know cows' GHG emissions, we know how GHG emissions affect global temperature, and now apparently we know the GHG emissions of massive animals that lived 65 million years ago.
So which is it? A headline-worthy guesstimate OR that we know the GHG emissions of massive animals that lived 65 million years ago?

I see that you put study in quotes. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taken seriously? Which studies should be taken seriously? Which measurements should we note, which ones should we classify as unreliable? Does a group that performs a study which is sponsored by oil companies mean that we shouldn't take a look at their data? What about a group that has communists in it?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post


That knife cuts both ways. This place wouldn't suck as much if you didn't act like exactly like Kevin and contribute absolutely nothing to this thread besides snide "Yeah!" and "What he said!" comments - that is, unless you're jumping in feet-first supporting some sort of climate-change-skepticism article or video and then disappearing when it inevitably turns out to be 75% fake or incorrect.


It's been known for decades that dinosaur methane output would've been tremendous. All this "study" does is put a headline-worthy guesstimate number on it. It doesn't in the least try to account for any other number of climate variables that existed 65 million years ago - such as, you know, the continents not even being in the same place.

How in the hell do you reach this conclusion? How does it show anything about man's impact on global warming, or our understanding of it? It's a straight-up calculation based on cow methane output and dinosaur size and estimated numbers, for cryin out loud. If anything, the only conclusion we can take from this study is that it shows man's knowledge of its impact on global warming - after all, all you've provided us is the fact that we know our GHG emissions, we know cows' GHG emissions, we know how GHG emissions affect global temperature, and now apparently we know the GHG emissions of massive animals that lived 65 million years ago.

Yes, that's right - it shows the exact opposite of what you says it does. What a shocker.


Yes: your loling has everything to do with the fact that you're completely ignorant about this subject, but yet apparently still feel the need to contribute your ignorance to any such discussion.


Look, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant on this subject. There's nothing wrong with not giving a flying fack whether the world freezes, burns, or stays exactly the same. But why do the both of you (amongst the other usual suspects) continually feel the need to misdirect or otherwise act like non-contributing zeros when it comes to this subject?

Most of us would appreciate something worthwhile. An article - tell us what you think. A comment - some sort of expansion on a topic.

Nope. None of those things from you two.
So, I guess that's a no to respectful/civil discourse? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
So which is it? A headline-worthy guesstimate OR that we know the GHG emissions of massive animals that lived 65 million years ago?
Easy - it's both.

I see that you put study in quotes. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taken seriously? Which studies should be taken seriously? Which measurements should we note, which ones should we classify as unreliable? Does a group that performs a study which is sponsored by oil companies mean that we shouldn't take a look at their data? What about a group that has communists in it?
Every study should be taken seriously. You take it seriously, and then you assess the context of the study, and how and why it fits into current scientific knowledge.

This study gives us a ballpark estimate of what dinosaur methane output may have been. But the authors acknowledge up-front the limits of its usefullness. Basically, what we can take from this study is that GHG output by massive herbivores the size of transport trucks was likely "very, very high."

Mind-blowing. Moving on.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
So, I guess that's a no to respectful/civil discourse? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
I've engaged in enough respectful/civil discourse on this forum to say that it's always my preferred method.

On the other hand, I don't suffer fools gladly. And on this particular topic, the both of you amply demonstrate that you're being fools.
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 05:04 PM
 
Give it a rest. You're arguing scientific method against belief, and scientific method will always lose. Belief doesn't require anything except blind faith. You aren't going to change their beliefs. I've been trying for the past 10 years and not a single person has budged. FOX News and the Heartland Institute are very effective at what they do by forming opinion based on emotion rather than a logical thought process.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 09:47 PM
 
Conservatives keep claiming a global cooling trend for the last 10 years.

Where is it? Seems like a warming trend.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2012, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
I've engaged in enough respectful/civil discourse on this forum to say that it's always my preferred method.

On the other hand, I don't suffer fools gladly. And on this particular topic, the both of you amply demonstrate that you're being fools.
Hmmm, can't say I've voiced my opinions on climate change in this thread, I was just mentioning how rude you are and have been for a while.

Fact is, I believe that we're experiencing change; some of it's man-made, some isn't. Generally however, you're so hostile that you don't really notice or remember past discussions. Maybe see a therapist, or switch to decaf, either way you're just raising your blood pressure and harming yourself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 05:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Good grief. You've said some silly things before but you may have outdone yourself again here.
Your silly opinion is noted.

Political agendas should be informed by the science.
And yet, it seems as though it's the political agendas which is driving "science." Otherwise, we wouldn't have decades of provably false predictions which all seem to support the same irrational political agendas.

If the science is conducted to further an agenda, its not science, its propaganda. Guess what? Scientists are not infallible. Modelling a ~10^50 atom system is seriously tricky stuff.
Then policy shouldn't be made on this "tricky stuff" that has proven over and over to be unreliable. Especially when those policies seek to exert overwhelming control over individuals and their ability to seek a livelihood.

I've probably said it before but if you don't want to take "science" seriously, then you really shouldn't be on the internet.
HAHAHA!

It's not "science" that I'm not taking seriously, as much as the "science fiction" that people create which is inspired by actual "science." That's the problem we've been facing. Too many people making stuff up, inspired by things that can actually be proven, in order to forward a political agenda. Otherwise, there would be no need to bounce from scientifically researched "population bomb" impeding disasters, to an impending global cooling disaster, to a impending global warming disaster twenty years later, to non-specific and unprovable "climate change" impending disasters when all the dire scientifically supported predictions never seem to pan out. At what point do people have the intellectual honesty and self respect to stop hiding behind "science" and just admit that they really only have a fraction of a clue about any of this? That after at least a half century of trying, that their inability to jumble together known variables into a model that correctly predicts any kind of impending disaster has shown to mostly be a failure and to stop embarrassing themselves?

In order for me to take something seriously, it has to have merit. I'm sorry ,but the politically driven Chicken Little "IT'S SCIENCE" call to action has proven not to be worth much. Not because I don't "believe," but because the DATA out there SHOWS that these predictions consistently fail. ENOUGH ALREADY!
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 9, 2012 at 06:08 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 07:06 AM
 
You really have a very poor grasp of all this.

Scientists conduct research, and where possible or potentially useful they draw conclusions. If the data from a study points to global cooling or warming or population explosion or whatever, and the best research on those events points to various potential unpleasant consequences for humanity should the scientists burn their research so that you don't get inconvenienced too much when someone tries to plan for it or do something about it?

I'm not going to deny that there are politicians on both sides who will abuse scientific research for their own agendas but guess what? They are politicians. Its what they do.
If you disagree with it, then by all means check the science for errors in method or logic or math. Stop trying to argue against science and reason using politics, this just makes you look foolish.

Here is a good analogy for your "reasoning":

"Someone told me if I run across the road I might get run over, but I ran across the road a bunch of times and I didn't get run over so that guy is wrong and anyone else who says that people can get run over is wrong. Getting run over is impossible and the government should get rid of all speed limits and pedestrian crossings because I find them inconvenient and no-one can ever get run over anyway."
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Scientists conduct research, and where possible or potentially useful they draw conclusions. If the data from a study points to global cooling or warming or population explosion or whatever, and the best research on those events points to various potential unpleasant consequences for humanity should the scientists burn their research so that you don't get inconvenienced too much when someone tries to plan for it or do something about it?
We know that scientific advancement often challenges and modifies prior conclusions. Can science afford to modify its conclusion under a situation where we've collectively begun major initiatives in line with the prior, antiquated understanding? I'm not sure it can. It begets tribal mentalities among those in its community, entrenched in the ideals it needs to sustain a livelihood. After all, they are humans too.

I'm not going to deny that there are politicians on both sides who will abuse scientific research for their own agendas but guess what? They are politicians. Its what they do.
If you disagree with it, then by all means check the science for errors in method or logic or math. Stop trying to argue against science and reason using politics, this just makes you look foolish.
The IPCC is the purveyor of climate science today. They are the establishment of climate science. It is a political body first and foremost. It is comprised not mostly of scientists, but mostly of politicians, economists, policymakers, and authors. Politics are an inseparable feature of this science I'm afraid. You can't have it both ways. A fool and his money and all that.
ebuddy
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 08:29 AM
 
You have to look at each published work and judge it on its own merits. Political leanings whether personal on behalf of the scientists or more likely due to the origin of the funding or most likely of all applied after the research is done by the politicians presenting or 'spinning' it to the media and the public are just another factor to be scientifically considered when deciding how much merit you wish to give a paper or a conclusion.

The problem is that people like you two are looking at these works with a foregone conclusion (while accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being to blame for exactly this). As long as you continue to do that, the rest of us cannot take you or your arguments seriously. It seems to be a pattern and has a whole lot more to do with you choosing what you want to believe, rather than actually bothering to consider or investigate rigorously what might actually be true.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Hmmm, can't say I've voiced my opinions on climate change in this thread, I was just mentioning how rude you are and have been for a while.
I enjoy happy stupidity as much as the next guy. But this sort of nonsense is just...nonsense, frankly.

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Thank you for making my point in a more reasonable manner.

Edit: I guess I just tend to get very, very annoyed now when people merely post non-conclusionary articles without comment. Regardless that it's a violation of the Pol Rules that no mod seems to care about enforcing, it's just plain lazy, in my view. Make a comment. Say what you think this article means. Tell how this piece reinforces your opinion(s). Just say something, so people can figure out the point of what you're trying to say, rather than (as demonstrated above) reading an ambiguous article and then thinking "okay...so....what?"
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You have to look at each published work and judge it on its own merits.
Of course.

Political leanings whether personal on behalf of the scientists or more likely due to the origin of the funding or most likely of all applied after the research is done by the politicians presenting or 'spinning' it to the media and the public are just another factor to be scientifically considered when deciding how much merit you wish to give a paper or a conclusion.
Absolutely.

The problem is that people like you two are looking at these works with a foregone conclusion (while accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being to blame for exactly this).
For a minute there I thought the academic exercise above was to affirm these facts to yourself, but now I'm convinced that you're entirely dependent on what you're calling foregone conclusions.

As long as you continue to do that
Do what, what you've recommended be done? I happen to have a great deal of historical precedent regarding the propensities of the establishments of science at my disposal. Of course, you can call it scientific evidence if it makes you feel better as the enthusiast you're playing here. Not to give credence to the mistaken notion that science has no presuppositions, makes no predictions based on them, and is never driven to endeavor a conclusion. Foregone? Well... technically if it's not foregone, it hasn't reached its full merit.

the rest of us cannot take you or your arguments seriously.
I wouldn't separate the two members you're talking about from the rest of this forum any more than I'd assume you're being taken seriously. Maybe we're just springboarding off your own bullet-proof arguments to prove you're not really as aware as you might think.

It seems to be a pattern and has a whole lot more to do with you choosing what you want to believe, rather than actually bothering to consider or investigate rigorously what might actually be true.
The only pattern you'll see from me in this is rigorous, effective debate. In many cases I'm paying closer attention to the evidence cited for AGW than the zealots who cited it. The pattern you should see is the frustration of exactly what you mention above; the spin for media and mass consumption. You see, the evidence itself is actually very dry and unemotional. It is most often much less urgent or dire in its conclusions. My concern is that folks appear to be making more of it than it suggests and their partisan counterparts in office make more of it than is necessary. To be clear, I won't use politics to challenge science, but it's common for the rest of the forum to do just that. The problem you're having is that I'm willing to engage either piece and often do not align with your presuppositions.

Really, we're just concerned about two different anthropogenic follies.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2012, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You really have a very poor grasp of all this.


Scientists conduct research, and where possible or potentially useful they draw conclusions.
Drawing conclusions in this regard mostly relies on making certain false assumptions, which is why the conclusions they draw (in regards to this topic) are almost always proven to be false over time.

If the data from a study points to global cooling or warming or population explosion or whatever, and the best research on those events points to various potential unpleasant consequences for humanity should the scientists burn their research so that you don't get inconvenienced too much when someone tries to plan for it or do something about it?
Do we really need to draw a graph comparing the predictions to the real-life results over the past half century in order for you to be able to accept the "data" that "science" has pretty much failed in it's predictions of impending doom due to environmental disasters based on models and interpretations of data?

I'm not going to deny that there are politicians on both sides who will abuse scientific research for their own agendas but guess what? They are politicians. Its what they do.
If you disagree with it, then by all means check the science for errors in method or logic or math. Stop trying to argue against science and reason using politics, this just makes you look foolish.
It's not the data. It's the conclusions they come to based on the data which always seem to fail them. Again, there is a long pattern established here. When you can present the data that a pattern of failure exists, a person who accepts factual data has to pause and except the likelihood that there has been some bias injected into the "science." THAT is a concept you've apparently been unable to grasp.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Do we really need to draw a graph comparing the predictions to the real-life results over the past half century in order for you to be able to accept the "data" that "science" has pretty much failed in it's predictions of impending doom due to environmental disasters based on models and interpretations of data?
Uhhh....the data actually aligns quite well with the models and predictions. To what are you referring?
( Last edited by The Final Shortcut; May 10, 2012 at 08:45 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Uhhh....the data actually aligns quite well with the model predictions, actually.
When the models themselves show that possibly nothing will happen, or that there will possibly be utter devastation, it's not hard to be "right" in this regard.

However, there is at least a half century of examples where the worst case scenario was forwarded as likely, and requiring drastic action, where the worse case scenario never came close to occurring. We have repeated results over an extended sample of time. That should lead a reasonable person to conclude that a model's worse case scenario is not a reliable justification for action.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 08:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Do we really need to draw a graph comparing the predictions to the real-life results over the past half century in order for you to be able to accept the "data" that "science" has pretty much failed in it's predictions of impending doom due to environmental disasters based on models and interpretations of data?
Sounds like a stellar idea. Make certain that you reference where you acquired your data.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Sounds like a stellar idea. Make certain that you reference where you acquired your data.
And the data that you left out or modified or only chose certain measures from.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
And the data that you left out or modified or only chose certain measures from.
Now waitaminute! Why would you accuse me of the kind of tactics climate change researchers have been shown to use!

Seriously guys... if you need the data spoonfed to you and you haven't been paying attention all these years, I'm pretty sure nothing I could provide is ever going to convince you since it's clear you've already made up your minds.
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...there is at least a half century of examples where the worst case scenario was forwarded as likely, and requiring drastic action, where the worse case scenario never came close to occurring. We have repeated results over an extended sample of time. That should lead a reasonable person to conclude that a model's worse case scenario is not a reliable justification for action.
Though it may or may not happen, and in fact is unlikely, the worst-case scenario for drunk driving is that the driver will severely injure and/or kill either themselves, someone else, or both. In this instance, we are more than happy to enact laws banning this behaviour to reduce the risk of this worst-case scenario arising. Considering that the ramifications are potentially so much more devastating, why wouldn't the same principle apply to climate change?
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That's about right.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Drawing conclusions in this regard mostly relies on making certain false assumptions...
Such as?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...which is why the conclusions they draw (in regards to this topic) are almost always proven to be false over time.
First of all, there are no published peer review studies that disagree with the premise that humans affect global climate change. So you're wrong already, just like you were the last time this topic came up, and just like you were for the past 9 years that you've maintained this position.

Secondly, the published data and research regarding climate change is no more or less accurate than any other published field of study. So I hope you understand why I find this so baffling, that you're attempting to draw distinctions where none exist. The exact same methods and rigor used to test physics, cosmology, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, etc. are used for climatology.

Third, one of the most important aspects of scientific method is that the theory falsifiable; i.e., if it is inaccurate or false, you can demonstrate how and why it is inaccurate or false. After that is done, the theory is adjusted and new predictions are made. That is why when a prediction is made and doesn't pan out, the results are equally important regardless if the theory tested false; you always learn something.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Do we really need to draw a graph comparing the predictions to the real-life results over the past half century in order for you to be able to accept the "data" that "science" has pretty much failed in it's predictions of impending doom due to environmental disasters based on models and interpretations of data?
Sure. Here are current temperature plots overlaid on predictions as far back as 1981.



Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's not the data. It's the conclusions they come to based on the data which always seem to fail them.
By whom and what conclusions?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Again, there is a long pattern established here.
Please cite sources.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
When you can present the data that a pattern of failure exists, a person who accepts factual data has to pause and except the likelihood that there has been some bias injected into the "science."
Just like Glenn Beck, huh?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
First of all, there are no published peer review studies that disagree with the premise that humans affect global climate change.
And at one time, there were no officially sanctioned experts who disagreed with the premise that the Earth was flat.

Appeals to popularity or expertise is not evidence of facts.

Also, believing something has the ability to affect something does not necessarily mean that it will have the kinds of catastrophic effects that have been theorized over and over again.

So you're wrong already, just like you were the last time this topic came up, and just like you were for the past 9 years that you've maintained this position.
How does having scientists BELIEVE something that they can't prove, and have used that belief to try and push societal changes based on the notion that this belief pointed to a sure global catastrophe - only to be proven wrong time and again, make ME wrong?

Third, one of the most important aspects of scientific method is that the theory falsifiable; i.e., if it is inaccurate or false, you can demonstrate how and why it is inaccurate or false.
Exactly. When we are told that we will all be burning up in ten years if extreme change is not put into place, and then it isn't and then there really isn't any kind of extreme catastrophic change, we can see that the theories put forth based on the data have been false. That's my point. Over at least the last half century, the theories that we are going to soon be consumed by a natural disaster of our making if we don't take drastic steps, have been proven false. Time and again. This precise view forwarded by scientists has been shown to be unreliable BASED ON THE DATA.

By whom and what conclusions?
So have I been imagining it, or has "science" NOT been predicting one form of man-made impending natural disaster for the past 50 years or so? Did we not have scientists warning us that without drastic measures, the Earth was going to go through extreme cooling back in the 70's and early 80's, only to never have it happen? Were we not assured by experts that if we didn't stop consuming, we'd all be living on a shell of a planet by the 90's due to overpopulation, only to never have it happen? After those two attempts to get us to stop consuming failed, starting in the early 90's, were we not told that if we didn't invest in things like the Kyoto treaty, that we'd be suffering from extreme warming within the next ten years - ONLY TO SEE IT NOT HAPPEN, even almost 20 years later, to the point where these scientists stop talking about "global warming" and shifted to generic "climate change" marketing to get us to stop consuming, so that they will look less silly?

Where you just born this past decade?
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 11, 2012 at 07:19 AM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Though it may or may not happen, and in fact is unlikely, the worst-case scenario for drunk driving is that the driver will severely injure and/or kill either themselves, someone else, or both. In this instance, we are more than happy to enact laws banning this behaviour to reduce the risk of this worst-case scenario arising. Considering that the ramifications are potentially so much more devastating, why wouldn't the same principle apply to climate change?
Simple; because the toll of AGW is nowhere near as clear as the toll of drinking and driving. I'd be willing to bet few here don't have someone in their lives that have been affected by a drunk driver. Still, if drunk-driving legislation were proposed to require everyone to purchase a specific kind of alcohol, specific kind of car, pay a specific surcharge for mitigating drunk-driving, and imposed hundreds of millions of dollars a year in costly regulations; it would compete more handily with AGW for being most contentious.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 07:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
First of all, there are no published peer review studies that disagree with the premise that humans affect global climate change.
There are no published, peer-reviewed studies that disagree with the premise that God created the earth and everything in it. Sure, there are published, peer-reviewed studies that suggest other means of biological development, but they don't disagree with the premise that God created the earth. Why? Because they don't have to. It may be hard to separate an argumentative attitude from science, but you see there are a wealth of published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate other, more profound forces of natural variability. You might be expecting to see; "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX", but you see that's not how science works.

Again, it doesn't have to. You have to, but that's not science.
ebuddy
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There are no published, peer-reviewed studies that disagree with the premise that God created the earth and everything in it. Sure, there are published, peer-reviewed studies that suggest other means of biological development, but they don't disagree with the premise that God created the earth. Why? Because they don't have to. It may be hard to separate an argumentative attitude from science, but you see there are a wealth of published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate other, more profound forces of natural variability. You might be expecting to see; "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX", but you see that's not how science works.

Again, it doesn't have to. You have to, but that's not science.
Please tell me you realize how amazingly red herring-ish this argument is.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 08:47 AM
 
Here's what the experts and scientists who had access to all the available models and data told us, back in 1970 after the first Earth Day:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

I think I like this one the best. It contains all the learned logically fallacious debate tactics we see these days from the Global Warming crowd. It has an appeal that cites experts, insists on consensus, and then makes predictions which aren't likely to come true!


“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

This is back when the data showed that we where destroying the world with pollution and overpopulation and we were going to go into a new ice age. Here we are 40 years later and did any of these things come to fruition?

I'm attempting to gather predictions from experts and scientists for the next 40 years as well, to show the lunacy that the "science" community continually engages in to justify their jobs.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 10:36 AM
 
So....you basically have 3, maybe 4, people who predicted doom (quite famously too, I might add). And then 1 or 2 publications that commented on their views.

I'd point out how absolutely outrageous those people were considered to be when those quotes were made...how you've cherry-picked a few extremist individuals and then claimed that the "scientific community" is responsible for these claims... but wait. I already have. Others already have. Many, many, many, many, times. And still you post this stupid, incorrect, and even idiotic nonsense.

Truly, like talking to a brick wall.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
So....you basically have 3, maybe 4, people who predicted doom (quite famously too, I might add). And then 1 or 2 publications that commented on their views.
That was just in a period of a month or so, that I could find readily. Seriously - 1 minute on Google.

I'd point out how absolutely outrageous those people were considered to be when those quotes were made...
Uh no, for instance, Paul Ehrlich was a best selling author, was sought out as an expert by scientific and mainstream periodicals, and IS STILL Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology and is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.[6]

Does this really sound like the resume of someone who is considered "absolutely outrageous"?

Really? Is that the best you can do?
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 12:25 PM
 
Sigh.

Please, for the love of God, do yourself a favour and at least read the Wikipedia page on Paul Ehrlich. The Population Bomb was not necessarily based on "global cooling" in the first place - overpopulation was its driving theme - but he's made any number of doomsday-like predictions over the years, none of which have come true to my knowledge. Yes, the Population Bomb *was* outrageous.

Equating the Population Bomb to today's climate science debating is wrong on so many levels that it hurts my head.

Finally: Erlich's numerous failed disaster scenarios in no way expunges all the great scientific work he may have done over his career - even in getting to his erroneous conclusions. Do you understand why this is so?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Please tell me you realize how amazingly red herring-ish this argument is.
Didn't you in light of the post I was responding to?
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Simple; because the toll of AGW is nowhere near as clear as the toll of drinking and driving. ... If drunk-driving legislation were proposed to require everyone to purchase a ... specific kind of car,
Drunk driving could be eradicated overnight if everyone was required to purchase a self-driving car (or retrofit kit). There would be no need for special alcohol or mitigating surcharge. And people using the self-driving cars would enjoy dozens of fringe benefits, like guilt-free texting and no more traffic police. The environment would also benefit, as self-driving cars could be more efficient and not subject to road-ragey user error, they could draft on each other, slow down and speed up smoother, use information sent by all the other cars, and eventually obviate stop lights and just drive past each other seamlessly. Not to mention the environmental cost of car accidents would be virtually eliminated. The future will look back on our manually driven cars as arcane and barbaric, like child labor or bullfighting.

Which I guess by analogy would mean that scientists should skip the whole exercise of predicting the weather and just make a machine to control the weather. It's way easier to predict something that you have direct control over.
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Simple; because the toll of AGW is nowhere near as clear as the toll of drinking and driving. I'd be willing to bet few here don't have someone in their lives that have been affected by a drunk driver. Still, if drunk-driving legislation were proposed to require everyone to purchase a specific kind of alcohol, specific kind of car, pay a specific surcharge for mitigating drunk-driving, and imposed hundreds of millions of dollars a year in costly regulations; it would compete more handily with AGW for being most contentious.
Point taken, though I'd argue that if the two were compared on a sliding scale regarding the clarity of their tolls, drunk driving would be near the top and Global Warming would be near the centre. Our collective action towards solving these issues would see drunk driving still near the top yet Global Warming is near the bottom, which seems out of whack to me.
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Appeals to popularity or expertise is not evidence of facts.
Correct, evidence is evidence of facts.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Also, believing something has the ability to affect something does not necessarily mean that it will have the kinds of catastrophic effects that have been theorized over and over again. How does having scientists BELIEVE something that they can't prove...
Belief has nothing to do with it. It is direct and observational evidence, testing, and prediction. In these few sentences you've already demonstrated you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Why are you taking this so personal? Did you get a sunburn once and now claim vengeance on the sun?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and have used that belief to try and push societal changes based on the notion that this belief pointed to a sure global catastrophe - only to be proven wrong time and again, make ME wrong?
Who is they? What has been proven wrong? I'm asking you, again, to provide citations. Where is all this insurmountable proof of wrongdoing?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
When we are told that we will all be burning up in ten years...
Who said that?

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...then there really isn't any kind of extreme catastrophic change, we can see that the theories put forth based on the data have been false.
There has been extreme change. Direct and observable evidence. The entire mean temperature of the planet has increased.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That's my point. Over at least the last half century, the theories that we are going to soon be consumed by a natural disaster of our making if we don't take drastic steps, have been proven false. Time and again.
What theories? What are you talking about? All I'm hearing is parroting of conservative blogs and talk shows with absolutely zero evidence to support your argument.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
This precise view forwarded by scientists has been shown to be unreliable BASED ON THE DATA.
No, it's been shown to be pretty much spot on.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So have I been imagining it, or has "science" NOT been predicting one form of man-made impending natural disaster for the past 50 years or so?
Since you put science in quotation marks, I would assume your source of scientific data would be The National Enquirer.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Did we not have scientists warning us that without drastic measures, the Earth was going to go through extreme cooling back in the 70's and early 80's, only to never have it happen?
Scientists? You mean all of 2, maybe 3 of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and experts in the field? You know what they're called? A statistical anomaly.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Were we not assured by experts that if we didn't stop consuming, we'd all be living on a shell of a planet by the 90's due to overpopulation, only to never have it happen?
No. I mean, unless you were listening to Art Bell. Sometimes he has "experts" on that make those claims, then sell lots of books. I guess you've read quite a few of them.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
After those two attempts to get us to stop consuming failed, starting in the early 90's, were we not told that if we didn't invest in things like the Kyoto treaty, that we'd be suffering from extreme warming within the next ten years...
Nothing failed, and if you haven't noticed, people haven't stopped consuming. Markets were forced to adapt to rising fuel prices and availability. The fuel efficiency of cars doubled in the 10 years following the 1970s. In 20 years it tripled, and has increased an average of 1.6 Mpg every year since. The amount of oil available didn't magically increase, technology has allowed us to extract oil from places never thought possible or economical. 10 years ago no one heard about hydraulic fracturing. We don't need hundreds of giant coal power plants to deal without energy needs because nuclear, natural gas, geothermal, tidal, and solar has replaced many of them. Within our lifetimes, those will be replaced with fusion and other sources of clean energy.

You are so out of the loop in terms of technology and efficiency, you're still stuck in the 1970s.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
- ONLY TO SEE IT NOT HAPPEN, even almost 20 years later...
Right, because initiatives were taken to curb the problem.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...to the point where these scientists stop talking about "global warming" and shifted to generic "climate change" marketing to get us to stop consuming, so that they will look less silly?
I'm confused. A little while ago your conspiracy was that the tree hugging hippies were inventing a disaster to get people to consume more green technology. Now you're saying it's a huge conspiracy to make people stop consuming.

I think your Glenn Beck chart has come full circle. Maybe you should draw a new.

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Where you just born this past decade?
Judging from your remarks, you were apparently born yesterday.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:24 PM
 
What's funny is that there was an entire special on NOVA just this last Earth Day. It covered most of the people you cited, and many of them were viewed to be on the extreme if not right out laughable by the general scientific community. However, you're also typically taking many of the comments out of context. Most stated that if current trends didn't change, that the possibility of ecological disaster could ensue. Things did change, and they changed tremendously as I already pointed out.

If you want to know what the United States' future looked like from the 1970s looking into the 1990s, go look at China.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:25 PM
 
Also, I'm done with this thread. It's the same tired argument from stupendousman and I'm sick of it.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Drunk driving could be eradicated overnight if everyone was required to purchase a self-driving car (or retrofit kit). There would be no need for special alcohol or mitigating surcharge. And people using the self-driving cars would enjoy dozens of fringe benefits, like guilt-free texting and no more traffic police. The environment would also benefit, as self-driving cars could be more efficient and not subject to road-ragey user error, they could draft on each other, slow down and speed up smoother, use information sent by all the other cars, and eventually obviate stop lights and just drive past each other seamlessly. Not to mention the environmental cost of car accidents would be virtually eliminated. The future will look back on our manually driven cars as arcane and barbaric, like child labor or bullfighting.
You make an interesting point; you have to relinquish freedom and control for safety and progress. There are any number of things we could do to facilitate the Nerf™ world, but is that necessarily a better world in your view? Don't get me wrong, the prospect of traveling 120 mph from point A to point B along an interstate full of traffic controlled electronically is quite pleasing in terms of efficiency... until the system fails or is compromised. Still, I can't help, but think the collective would be a little more accepting of the sacrifices necessary for protecting global climate if the benefits were as plentiful as they appear to be for self-driving cars. As it stands today, AGW zealotry is an expensive solution looking for a problem.

Which I guess by analogy would mean that scientists should skip the whole exercise of predicting the weather and just make a machine to control the weather. It's way easier to predict something that you have direct control over.
I suspect this sort of wizardry would be a most unfortunate development in the wrong hands.
ebuddy
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
there is at least a half century of examples where the worst case scenario was forwarded as likely, and requiring drastic action, where the worse case scenario never came close to occurring. We have repeated results over an extended sample of time. That should lead a reasonable person to conclude that a model's worse case scenario is not a reliable justification for action.
Why not try this:

Get one or more scientists to design and run a model on what would happen if they dropped a piano on your head from a second height of ~20m using a crane. I suspect the worst case scenario of you being killed would turn out to be quite likely in any good model. Then you can try this experimentally and see how well your theory of not taking any action to prevent the worst case scenario by just standing there and letting it fall on you works out.

Your "theory" on the credibility of these scientific models is missing a couple of important points.

Firstly, "likely" is not the same as "probably" or even "most likely". You may stand only a 25% chance of getting run over if you try to cross a busy big speed road 10 times, but given how bad that potential outcome is if you are hit, its worth taking action to avoid that reasonably "likely" 25% chance.

Secondly, it seems that you object to the fact that people have taken action based on these models and predictions and you are annoyed that they never came to pass so the action was wasteful. Maybe taking that action helped?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Firstly, "likely" is not the same as "probably" or even "most likely". You may stand only a 25% chance of getting run over if you try to cross a busy big speed road 10 times, but given how bad that potential outcome is if you are hit, its worth taking action to avoid that reasonably "likely" 25% chance.
I remember many similar arguments being made about WMD Iraq.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,