User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 205

  1. #161
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Are you aware that's a collection of ignorant clichés on Climatology?

    Bla bla bla bla bla bla...

    Because here, you are suggesting that we know NOTHING of this subject, and that's not true either.

    We have evidences everywhere that something is occuring at a fast rate, and that men are involved. Just check the Carbon isotopes in plant tissues that show how they absorb it, you will clearly see the anthropogenic influence.

    Indeed, the total amount of consequences is still unknown, but how and why these events are happening is a no-debate.
    You seem to conclude that Climatology is not a hard science because we still have a range of possible scenarios (from worst to catastrophic), but each year, these possible variations are becoming more and more precise.
    You can't pretend Climatology is saying one thing and its opposite, that would be not true AT ALL, even if that's what you're suggesting.

    As I said, you're just hiding you're ignorance with an assortment of (false) clichés.
    Hardly, I consider it a very important science. I just find it to be... as much an artform as a science, because we literally don't have enough information to make even remotely accurate predictions. Trial and error repeatedly shows our best guesses weren't even close.

    Now, that being said, we are WAY more accurate than we once were, and our knowledge is growing by leaps and bounds. But of the sciences we have... climate is one of the weakest fields we have currently in terms of understanding.

    We also know that there are changes occurring at all times, and that we're currently in a transitional phase as there's several cycles all occurring at a relatively similar time frame. It's not a "zomg the stars are aligned!" type occurrence, but it's definitely abnormal right now. How much of an impact is man made, and how much is due to various other very grand scale factors (like... solar cycles; right now the sun's output is about 15% less than the average amount during a high peak, this skews the results of where the temperatures should be significantly), is hard to tell, though admittedly man made changes are significantly less by anyone's estimate. Even so, we could very well be the figurative straw that broke the camel's back as well. After all, no one rain drop thinks it is to blame for the flood =3

    I don't totally disagree with yeu honestly, I just think yeur reasoning of how yeu're coming to yeur conclusion sucks ^^

  2. #162
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The proposed solutions to global warming would both decrease our standard of living and make make competition with China (and India, etc.) much more problematic.
    Well, investment in green technologies, that definitely shifts our long term aggregate demand to the right, and our long term aggregate supply to the right. I haven't looked at the proposals, but it seems common sense to cut through all the murky water and just improve out standard of living.

  3. #163
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    Well, investment in green technologies, that definitely shifts our long term aggregate demand to the right, and our long term aggregate supply to the right. I haven't looked at the proposals, but it seems common sense to cut through all the murky water and just improve out standard of living.
    Higher energy costs and suffocating red-tape would not improve the standard of living.

  4. #164
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Higher energy costs and suffocating red-tape would not improve the standard of living.
    You definitely do need replacement energy substitutes to increase elasticity of demand for energy, and lower long run costs for energy supplies though.

  5. #165
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No, but the scientists involved have politicized their findings (in terms of policy prescriptions), exaggerated the certainty of their findings, fudged data (which is not unprecedented, luminaries such as Isaac Newton did the same thing), engaged in misleading presentations of their findings, and generally behaved like complete asses.
    Question: Could this be true even when 99% of the scientific community notice exactly the same trends? When every finger points in the same direction?

    Do you really think there is such a thing as a scientific global conspiracy, and that every scientist "behaves like complete asses" (if not the majority of them)?

    The preponderance of evidence (in the form of general consensus among hard-science specialists) is still in favor of the man-made climate-change hypothesis, but recent developments have indicated that climate scientists really don't understand enough of what's going on to trust any catastrophic predictions at this point in time, especially when evidence suggest the scientist themselves cannot be trusted to present their findings accurately.
    Which "recent developments"?

    Well, I have every sign of the contrary. With each new year, the predictions and models are more and more accurate. With each new year, we understand better and better the real nature of this change. With each new year, we collect more and more proofs and workable evidences.
    Why would it be otherwise, tell me?

    Do we read the same papers?



    Most importantly, the climate-change hysteria has engendered proposed solutions (such as the Kyoto Protocol) that would likely be counter-productive in terms of both relative costs as well as the ostensible goal of decreasing the amount of greenhouses gasses in the atmosphere-perhaps you could explain why forcing industries (through onerous regulations and substantially higher energy costs) to move to countries where greenhouse emissions per unit of production are much higher will somehow decrease the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
    That's politics. I'm not concerned, or at least, not in this thread.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  6. #166
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post




    For an on topic relevant example, the whole CO2 and temperature rise thing was thought to be a trend... turns out with further study that the temperature rises FIRST, and the CO2 rises proportionately AFTER. The trend didn't exist, and was actually occurring in reversed fashion to the observed values at first due to insufficient data and inaccurate measurements from earlier ice core samples. As the technology and understanding of ice cores became more refined, the accuracy increase caught the error and corrected the mistake.

    You obviously have misinterpreted the CO2 lag (that happened through long natural cycles, and not artificial ones). You're just pontificating over incomplete datas.

    Tell me, where have you read your curious (and absurd) theory?



    Now that being said, there's alot of discrepancy in the scientific community as to exactly whot's going on because various research projects are currently providing conflicting information. One research team will get evidence that global warming is occurring, another will be presented with information that it's not, a third will be shown that localized increases are occurring but other areas are decreasing, another still will think to factor in that we're in a dormant period of the sun's activity phase right now and will try to calculate out how much of an effect is happening in relation to where we would be at the height of a solar cycle, yet another will check historical records from a tsunami 300 years ago and get totally different data from the one doing research on ice cores presenting a range of several thousand years availability.
    That is not true AT ALL!!!!

    Again, more than 99% of the current scientific studies on climatology all show that global warming is occuring. The other conclusions you are talking about are insignificant anecdotes, or misleading propaganda spread by journalists with an agenda, or the oil lobby.

    It's not one team against another, and another, it's rather 99% of them against the remaining 1%.

    Due to so much conflicting data, context sensitive information, limited understanding, and factors applying which we already know we don't recognize whot these extra outside factors are but we know they're playing a role we don't understand... fact is that there is NOT a consensus at all.

    O yes! There is a large international consensus based on scientific evidences.

    The only remaining issue is IDEOLOGICAL and POLITICAL. But don't confuse this false debate with Science.

    The one willing to use common sense.
    "Common sense" is not always rational. Here we have a clear proof of it.

    We obviously do have an effect upon our environment, and with enough cases of that situated close enough togeather, the impact is obvious as it grows; a city has a much more noticible impact on its' environment than an equal population of small towns spread out over a larger area due to the fact that there are issues of ... well for lack of a better term, an environmental rolling resistance, or environmental friction if yeu will. Once yeu get past that point, the effects are pretty obvious.
    Once again, you're totally wrong.

    Cities don't necessarily have a "more noticeable impact on their environment than an equal population of small towns spread out over a larger area".

    As a matter of fact, modern agriculture might have a deeper impact than urbanization. And heavy industries aren't necessarily located near the most populated cities, on the contrary!

    Yet... we don't know how much of an effect on a global scale these localized disturbances cause. Probably not that much currently, though that may be less accurate than predicted due to cumulative effects of several factors interlaced such as cutting huge swaths of forrest out for farmland and grazing, or diverting rivers as needed for irrigation, these are pretty large changes indirectly affecting the climate around them in ways we can't even perceive as of yet.
    You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

    Or at the very least, don't bicker at each other about it. Spend the time reading a research paper each time yeu want to complain and yeu'll have a much better grasp of whot's going on.
    Maybe it's time for you to read more scientific papers?

    -Especially about the CO2 lag, I might suggest-
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  7. #167
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Blackmail you're full of BS and lies, you teach at a university do you? Well you know what they say don't you? Those who cannot do, teach. MARGINALIZED.
    Ground control to Major Tom

  8. #168
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Which "recent developments"?
    For one, the fact that global temperatures have NOT been rising for the past several years, and more importantly that such a lag was not predicted before it happened cast doubt on the capacity of specialists to determine within reasonable accuracy the extent and consequences of future global warming trends.

    And in case there is some misunderstanding, I don't think there is any massive conspiracy, just a highly politicized atmosphere, especially where several prominent scientists are involved.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 12-04-2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason: more to add

  9. #169
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    Blackmail you're full of BS and lies, you teach at a university do you? Well you know what they say don't you? Those who cannot do, teach. MARGINALIZED.
    You know, the purpose of having a PhD (or, as we name them in Europe, "research doctorates") is eventually to teach.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  10. #170
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    And in case there is some misunderstanding, I don't think there is any massive conspiracy, just a highly politicized atmosphere, especially where several prominent scientists are involved.
    Are you implying that 99% of current world climatologists are necessarily "highly politized"?
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO