|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2007 : 07:29:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
They self correct! Who tells the scientist they are wrong Bill? Oh yea, other scientist!
Yes, but for all we know they could be wrong on their self correction. They could be trumping miss-information with miss-information. Once again demonstrating that man's science is not the end all be all of truth. It's been wrong on so many different occasions how could it be?
And for all we know they are correct. Yes, they might be wrong. But that way of thinking is inherently useless. We keep in mind that science is tentative and that all in science is up for revision. Just as democracy as a governmental system, it's not an ultimate answer that is correct on all counts. It's just the best we have to work with.
At this point, that best method we have to work with points towards a human cause of global warming as the best explanation of the phenomena we see at this moment in time. That is the data we have, that is the data we should work with. We can make an estimate of the known unknowns and how much they would impact the estimates we have now. That is taken into account in reports such as AR4. We can even, to a certain extent, make some estimates on the unknown unknowns. And if we have done that, such as we have done in AR4, we need to go and work with the data we have now. Any other way of working is bullshit.
But I like the shift of your argument, Bill. Okay, so now anthropogenic is not the reasoning of a fringe group, but of the global scientific community. But oh no, you cannot change your premise, so science has to be wrong. You don't have any data, you don't even have a clue on the issues apparantly. All you "know" is that anthropogenic global warming has to be wrong. You accuse me of not taking into account that science might be wrong, of not wanting to consider the opposite position. But it is clear you are merely projecting your own attitude on me in that. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 07:40:29 [Permalink]
|
Fresh from under the rock, Bill said:
"I despise EM for many reason. However, that by default does not mean that Dodge Durango's, on the way to the kid's baseball practice, are the cause of MMGW. Shoot, I think Microsoft is sleazy money grubbing company. However, that does not mean I can pin the responsibility for MMGW on Windows."
No, Bill. You just want to blame everyone but yourself. You don't want to be bothered with trying to save the planet so, you will just ignore it and hope for the best. Sticking with the MO at least.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/07/2007 07:42:11 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 07:50:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
They self correct! Who tells the scientist they are wrong Bill? Oh yea, other scientist!
Yes, but for all we know they could be wrong on their self correction. They could be trumping miss-information with miss-information. Once again demonstrating that man's science is not the end all be all of truth. It's been wrong on so many different occasions how could it be?
Your right, Bill. I highly suggest you go crawl under a rock. Don't want to be fooled by the mis-information.
Edited with better response:
Yes, Bill only a brave few can actually go out and do research on their own. Only us tireless souls can get our arse off the couch and get a library card. Low to we brave souls for our journey is yet long ahead, perilously searching for convincing arguments, data, and actual thoughts. We must think our way out of that paper sack, rather than call it home like so many of our brethren. Must we so work our bones? Can we not take a rest from such toil? No, for to do so would be... intellectual suicide. Stay back, Bill, the road is too difficult for the weak minded. It is best you simply let others do the work for you and merely stand back, clear of dangerous mis-information or yet worse mis-mis-information, aside: I don't think I'll even hint at the mis-mis-mis-information. Shuddering No Bill ahead is too much collating and organizing of facts. You take a rest here on under this rock, and await news from the brave scouts who will take on the arduous task of, thinking. cue scary music.
[twilight zone tune]
"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone. "
[/twilight zone tune] |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 07:53:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
Yes, and many times these results are proven wrong at a later time making them pseudoscience all at a time when they were being trumpeted as the scientific facts. So we must conclude that scientific results and scientific facts are not the end all be all of truth. Why? Because we see many times where they have been completely wrong so how could they be the end all be all.
Well, actually, every theory in science is tentative. And yes, theories have changed or been completely tossed based on the introduction of new evidence. (That doesn't make the earlier theory pseudoscience Bill. Unless the theory was built on flawed assumptions or methodology, like, say, creation science is.) The tentative nature of science is one of science's strengths. It allows for the introduction of new evidence so that science doesn't stagnate and become dogma. In these modern times, science has been amazingly accurate. Still, when dealing with very complex systems like global temperature fluctuations, and their causes and effects on other complex systems, absolute certainty isn't a goal. After evaluating the evidence, almost no one is arguing that global warming isn't happening. And scientists who were unsure of the cause of GW twenty years ago are now much more able to single out a human contribution to the problem, based once again on vast amounts of data collected and analyzed.
Bill, you will believe whatever science you wish to believe, which seems to follow either a political or religious agenda. If the science is not to your liking, you simply reject it. (Often by throwing scientists at us who agree with you, for whatever reason. Name one of your chosen scientists who has ever been successful at overthrowing a theory. Problem with your guys is they prefer the speach and book circuit and rarely submit anything for peer review. They offer nothing but the illusion of controversy.) If you can come up with a better method than science at sorting out what's going on in the natural world, I'd love to hear about it.
Anyhow, you got your ass kicked in this thread so once again you attack science itself. Good work Bill. At least you are consistant…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 07:54:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
You still have yet to produce any semblance of an argument, Bill. Science could be wrong. Everything could be ok. And fairies can get their wings if you only believe. Sorry, it just ain't happening.
Dave did it for me. While you have concluded that MMGW is a 100% slam dunk and a case closed discussion Dave makes the point that the general consensus of you guys has concluded that 90% is the figure for the chances of MMGW being a reality. There is a big difference between 0% and 10%. Shoot the Boston Redsox were facing a 1.3% chance of winning the World Series when they were down 3 games to nothing and losing game four to the Yankees with three outs to go in the ALCS. RedSox ended up sweeping Cards in 4.
quote:
What if Bill were right? Nothing. We still have highly inefficient gas guzzling vehicles and still are under the mercy of oil pushers.
I agree. But I think hitting the capitalist US consumer in the pocket book is going to sway public opinion much faster and effective then debatable doomsday prophecies. Remind the consumer that $4/gallon could be an easy reality if their demand for consumption is continued to be left solely to EM and OPEC. When they come to grips with this or they actually have to pay $4/gallon the public will demand a new energy sources. Why? Because they feal it in the pocket book.
quote:
Why do we not want cleaner energy sources?
Because many metro areas have a smog condition even if they don't have a GW one.
quote:
Why do we not want better gas milage?
I agree because where I live gas was $2.24 a XXXXXXX gallon this morning.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 08:15:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
That all depends on what you think Newsweek is the only "platform" for.
Who cares? I am more interested in the polling method used to derive this 90% chance of MMGW figure that you speak of.
That would require you to read more than Dr Ball rants in the Canadian Free Press, Bill. But since you're unwilling to do that, there's no point in even asking the question. Just put your head back in the sand, Bill and keep praying to your god Yahweh to fix your problems. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 08:35:40 [Permalink]
|
Fresh from under the rock!
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Dave did it for me. While you have concluded that MMGW is a 100% slam dunk and a case closed discussion
Tsk Tsk! That's projection Bill. I go with the evidence. The evidence says that GW is a real enough threat that we should pay attention and perhaps take some steps at preventative measures before we all die! We probably won't die. But Even then I want better more efficient sources of power than oil so the next gen won't have to deal with the same problem 10x worse.
quote:
Dave makes the point..
Yep. Dave makes excellent points on a regular basis here at SFN. Too bad about your track record.
quote:
that the general consensus of you guys has concluded that 90% is the figure for the chances of MMGW being a reality.
If you had a ninety percent chance of having a heart attack riding a roller coaster, would you get on? Maybe math isn't your subject so I will break it down. 90% is 9 out of 10. That's a big number Bill. Now go back to cutting your circle of paper, the sharp points could cut you.
quote:
There is a big difference between 0% and 10%. Shoot the Boston Redsox were facing a 1.3% chance of winning the World Series when they were down 3 games to nothing and losing game four to the Yankees with three outs to go in the ALCS. RedSox ended up sweeping Cards in 4.
They lost every other time than that Bill. That is the meaning of Most Likely!
quote:
quote:
What if Bill were right? Nothing. We still have highly inefficient gas guzzling vehicles and still are under the mercy of oil pushers.
I agree.
Awesome.
quote:
But I think hitting the capitalist US consumer in the pocket book is going to sway public opinion much faster and effective then debatable doomsday prophecies. Remind the consumer that $4/gallon could be an easy reality if their demand for consumption is continued to be left solely to EM and OPEC. When they come to grips with this or they actually have to pay $4/gallon the public will demand a new energy sources. Why? Because they feal it in the pocket book.
Uh-huh. Point?
quote:
quote:
Why do we not want cleaner energy sources?
Because many metro areas have a smog condition even if they don't have a GW one.
Bill your ignorance is showing. On top of the fact that, that doesn't make any sense, but, hey, got to maintain the MO, right.
quote:
quote:
Why do we not want better gas milage?
I agree because where I live gas was $2.24 a XXXXXXX gallon this morning.
Uh-huh.
So, do you actually have a point in disputing Global Warming? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 08:59:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Who cares?
You argued that Newsweek was "the only platform" for something or other, and now blow off requests for clarification by saying "who cares." Real nice.quote:
I am more interested in the polling method used to derive this 90% chance of MMGW figure that you speak of.
I never spoke of any such thing, unless you consider "90% chance" and "90% certainty" to be equivalent. And who said anything about polling? The 90% figure doesn't come from any sort of vote.
And later on, you wrote:quote:
Dave did it for me.
How could I have?quote:
While you have concluded that MMGW is a 100% slam dunk and a case closed discussion...
Provide evidence that Neurosis has "concluded that MMGW is a 100% slam dunk and a case closed discussion."quote:
...Dave makes the point that the general consensus of you guys has concluded that 90% is the figure for the chances of MMGW being a reality.
No, you refused to accept that figure, except now that it's convenient for you, you'll say I made the point.quote:
There is a big difference between 0% and 10%.
And an even bigger difference between 10% and the 50% you're trying to imply by whining about how science doesn't always give us the right answers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2007 : 15:41:51 [Permalink]
|
Let's give the pot a little stir.... EurekAlert! quote:
World's oldest rocks show how Earth may have dodged frozen fate of Mars
Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that has become a bane of modern society, may have saved Earth from freezing over early in the planet's history, according to the first detailed laboratory analysis of the world's oldest sedimentary rocks.
Scientists have theorized for years that high concentrations of greenhouse gases could have helped Earth avoid global freezing in its youth by allowing the atmosphere to retain more heat than it lost. Now a team from the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado at Boulder that analyzed ancient rocks from the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec, Canada, have discovered the first direct field evidence supporting this theory.
The study shows carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere could have sustained surface temperatures above freezing before 3.75 billion years ago according to the researchers, led by University of Chicago Assistant Professor Nicolas Dauphas. Co-authors on the study, which appeared online Jan. 16 in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, included Assistant Professor Stephen Mojzsis and doctoral student Nicole Cates of CU-Boulder's geological sciences department and Vincent Busigny, now of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris.
The new study helps explain how Earth may have avoided becoming frozen solid early in its history, when astrophysicists believe the sun was 25 percent fainter than today. Previous studies had shown liquid water existed at Earth's surface even though the weak sun should have been unable to warm the planet above freezing conditions. But high concentrations of CO2 or methane could have warmed the planet, according to the research team.
It has been said that the past is the future.... I've never had much of an argument with that.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 17:35:42 [Permalink]
|
One thing I find interesting in all this (aside from the fact that once again Bill has comically begun an attack upon something with as little preparation or staying power as had Rummy in Iraq) is the following:
Not only are mean global temperatures rising inexorably, the extremes of weather are apparently increasing as well. So we can have record cold winters in the midst of warming. Here in Northern California, it's been a relatively dry, cold winter. Local perceptions, especially in the midst of horrible icy storms some some parts, may vary, and with good reason.
But overall, the world is warmer.
I expect that every winter we will be seeing warming deniers grumpily complaining that they wish there was global warming. Even as the ice in Greenland and Antarctica slides into the sea, and the ocean levels rise. Clearly, CO2 and global mean temperatures have been rising at an accelerating rate since the Industrial Revolution began. This has been so firmly established that the deniers now mainly focus on their claim regarding the warming, that, in effect, "goddidit." They brush off that very close coincidental CO2 relationship that can be clearly seen in Filthy's graph.
I read good evidence of global warming way back around 1960, in a science article in, I think, Galaxy magazine. And we're still making things worse, rather than trying to fix them.
We are headed into a disaster that's bigger than almost anything our ancestors imagined. Can we afford to make the most dangerous possible interpretation of the signs we see?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 18:36:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
One thing I find interesting in all this (aside from the fact that once again Bill has comically begun an attack upon something with as little preparation or staying power as had Rummy in Iraq) is the following:
Not only are mean global temperatures rising inexorably, the extremes of weather are apparently increasing as well. So we can have record cold winters in the midst of warming. Here in Northern California, it's been a relatively dry, cold winter. Local perceptions, especially in the midst of horrible icy storms some some parts, may vary, and with good reason.
But overall, the world is warmer.
I expect that every winter we will be seeing warming deniers grumpily complaining that they wish there was global warming. Even as the ice in Greenland and Antarctica slides into the sea, and the ocean levels rise. Clearly, CO2 and global mean temperatures have been rising at an accelerating rate since the Industrial Revolution began. This has been so firmly established that the deniers now mainly focus on their claim regarding the warming, that, in effect, "goddidit." They brush off that very close coincidental CO2 relationship that can be clearly seen in Filthy's graph.
I read good evidence of global warming way back around 1960, in a science article in, I think, Galaxy magazine. And we're still making things worse, rather than trying to fix them.
We are headed into a disaster that's bigger than almost anything our ancestors imagined. Can we afford to make the most dangerous possible interpretation of the signs we see?
I do have to but in here a little bit. I don't think scare language like the last alinea is really justified or helpfull. When I look at the literature (although this is primarily from an health standpoint) I do not see any good consensus on what the consequences of global warming are going to be and how bad they are going to be for humans. Rising temperatures and temperature extremes aren't really going to make an enormous difference on human health, although the effects on ecology are much harder to predict. Coastal areas may have a problem, perhaps we may at some point even have to give up certain coastal cities. But to call that the "a disaster that's bigger than almost anything our ancestors imagined" seems a little overstated. Yes, the consequences can be severe and we should act on that. But worse then some of the great plagues or other natural phenomena? I'm not convinced of that. I just don't think that such scare-language is really helpfull. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 20:02:21 [Permalink]
|
Actually Tom, global warming will not just dump more water into the oceans, but cold water. Cold water that will disrupt the current ocean current and, most likely, drastically effect weather phenomenon. That will totally effect human health.
We must not forget Le Chatelier's Principle. Whatever is done to a system, it will seek the opposite conditions to relieve that stress. Meaning pendulem temperature effects and considering the unpredictability of the weather (even with our current meteorology technology) it could be disasterous. We still must use could of course. It may not be worse than some of the prior global climate disasters but those were pretty bad by my standards. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 20:03:14 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'm scared, Tom. Just from an agricultural viewpoint, there may be huge problems. Imagine the pressure for migrations. (My Canada invasion story wasn't all in jest.) The changes may have already begun, as with the drying of the Horn of Africa. Goodbye Mississippi delta. Goodbye Venice, and many coastal cities. (I suspect you Dutch will engineer your own survival once again, but that it will be a tough battle.) Goodbye much of Bangladesh. Hello, increasing hurricanes. And the danger is, nature may take over the acceleration process, with its own vicious cycle of CO2 and methane releases.
I don't think any action is going to be taken until a lot more people are scared. I suspect that might be too late, though. The bottom line is, better to risk looking like idiots, than looking like corpses.
I say, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then take action to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/07/2007 20:12:09 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 20:13:34 [Permalink]
|
| There's a lot of green-house gas locked up in the permafrost of Siberia... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 20:22:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I don't think any action is going to be taken until a lot more people are scared. I suspect that might be too late, though. The bottom line is, better to risk looking like idiots, than looking like corpses.
I say, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then take action to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses!
This is the part where I get off the train. I think people have reason to be scared, but I also know that fear and rationality are not brothers or even cousins. I think the fear train is more dangerous than the ignore it train in some ways. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/07/2007 20:23:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
