Post: #51

1. The notion that if a majority of scientists believe X, therefore X is true, is one of the most unscientific arguments there is. It is the antithesis of science.

2. Most people have no idea how science is done or funded. It is highly political, and always has been. Scientists need to drive cars, pay mortgages, pay for child care, buy food, etc. What type of grant is likely to support these endeavors, a pro-warming study or an anti-warming study, all other things being equal? Lay people think scientists are like an army of Spocks, but it is more like an army of Kirks.

3. Always lost in the shuffle is the fact that all global warming predictions are based on computer models. All computer models are inherently wrong for anything that does not have an analytical solution (i.e. a mathematical solution). All non-analytical models are wrong to some extent. Period. All global climate models are non-analytical. Some models are useful, and some have reasonable predictive power within a certain set of parameters.

4. I never see anyone ask the question: which model are you using? How was it built? And, most importantly, what does it predict? Prediction is the sine qua non of modeling. I have no idea what the predictive ability of these models is; no one ever seems to talk about it that I have seen. Maybe they do in the actual journals, but certainly not in the popular media. The other big issue is falsifiability, a key concept introduced by Karl Popper. If a model it not falsifiable, it is not science, because it cannot be disproven. What would it take to falsify these models? What experimental observation, if made, would show that the model is in error?

5. AGW belief is more likely to be a political statement as a social positioning argument intended to show that one side is for "science," while the other side are a bunch of idiots.

Post: #52

Sorry Dr. Howard, but your comparison to a notch-count is severely out of place.

Any accredited relationship "expert" & psychologist could claim that his 5 degrees and 20 years of experience as a psychiatrist and successful therapist is going to beat any kind of Game knowledge and Red Pill perception. Dealing with mostly faulty data does not make you an expert.

For example as an economist I know that I could spend the next 2000 years reading study after study of the current neo-liberal economic model - most of those "studies" would support the thesis, but none would even mention interest free monetary policy. So essentially after 2000 years and 500.000 figurative notches I would know shit.

The same wisdom can be applied to many subjects - even and especially medicine. If you never even saw or heard about the fact that you can heal and even reverse serious health conditions via diet and supplements, then you simply don't know.

Always be careful about making statements like: "I know so much more than all of you bunch, so you all better shut up and listen to me!" Anyone has a mind and a reasoning ability and the co-workers of NGOs and administrations are there to not ask questions, do their lobbying job and shut everyone up.

By the way - the chief UN Climate Disruption (they changed the name from Global Cooling in the 1970s, to Global Warming in the 1990s, then to Climate Change in the 00s) is a railway engineer - a man with a figurative million notch count.

Post: #53

Rajendra Pauchari, was asked a few simple questions at one of the recent climate summits. He was asked by a member of CFACT what the global temperature rise was since 1850. He did not know! !!! (0.8C)

The fact that the head of the IPCC does not even know the most basic facts in the debate shows clearly that Climate change/ global cooling (warming)/ disruption is not based in real science but in a global politically driven agenda. They want to keep pulling the wool over the eyes of the blue pill masses while shafting them from behind with "green" taxes in the name of maintaining and expanding the global agenda.

Post: #54

(05-27-2015 09:33 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Are you trying to shame us into believing in global warming? Cause aside from the shaming language, all you did was use the same methodology (cherry-picking years of satellite data) that the main part of your post is meant to refute.

People who say, "I want to believe X, therefore I am going to cite and pass around on twitter one piece of cherry-picked evidence as proof of X, even though I am smart enough to know one piece of cherry-picked evidence proves nothing" deserve to be shamed.

I'm not going to engage in the debate over whether global warming exists, what is causing it, or what we should do about it. It's beyond the scope of this post. I am making the limited point that cherry-picking two dates that show no change and passing them around as disproving global warming is frankly embarrassing. Not only should we understand that the person doing so has proved nothing, we should take anything else that person says with a big grain of salt. He or she has shown a lack of intellectual honesty and should take a big credibility hit. Just like if you hear someone uncritically cite the 1/5 campus rape statistic, or the $.77 wage gap, you know she's full of shit not just on that but probably on a lot of other things as well. When someone tries to snow me with numbers I can check with 5 minutes of research, that person is either stupid or thinks I am.

Even if I did cherry-pick dates in response to prove my point (which as I admitted I did to a small degree), the very fact that I could easily do so proves my point. The dates I picked don't prove that global warming exists. The dates that Heartiste retweeted doesn't prove that it doesn't. We are arguing at the level of "My mom smoked and died at 60." "Oh yeah? Well my grandpa smoked and lived to 90." Science is harder than that. If scientists operated that way we'd still be putting leeches on our cock and balls to cure syphilis and dancing to make it rain.

Post: #55

(05-27-2015 09:33 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Are you trying to shame us into believing in global warming? Cause aside from the shaming language, all you did was use the same methodology (cherry-picking years of satellite data) that the main part of your post is meant to refute.

No, he posted a counter-argument including verifiable assertions without necessarily going through the labor-intensive part of gathering and presenting all of the data to prove "global warming." But proving one argument fallacious and incorrect does not require proving the truth of the reverse.

I say: "Global warming not happening: look at this evidence"

Critic says: "Your evidence does not support your conclusion. It's bullshit. Here are a few examples to prove your faulty logic. It's a shameful use of dishonest rhetorical fallacy"

Critic would be right. Whether "global warming" is happening or not would be irrelevant in this scenario.

Post: #56

(05-27-2015 11:15 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  Aside from political agendas, how do you guys individually feel about global warming?

Complete bullshit?
On the fence, evidence goes back and forth?
Its obvious?

My scientific opinion:
Global warming is probably happening. Global climate change is definitely happening, just as it has for billions of years. The models used by most climate scientists are wildly inaccurate and my hypothesis is that they overstate the effect of CO2 on temperature.

My political opinion:
I suspect many in the inner cadre of climate scientists have realized how inaccurate their models are and/or have discovered major errors they made in previous publications for which they are now famous. That is why the IPCC has not released any data showing how well the climate models perform if we turn the clock back a couple of decades and let the models project temperatures that we have already measured. The researchers almost certainly did this already and I suspect they discovered that the models failed to produce anything close to the right temperatures. They have strong incentives to keep these errors from being revealed to the public.

It is easy to see why most politicians are ready to jump on the mainstream climate change bandwagon; it gives them more power. Politicians have very strong incentives to take more decisions out of the hands of the people and grant the right to make those decisions to themselves. Once those rights are taken away from the people, it is very difficult to get them back without a revolution or civil war.

Post: #57

I don't care about global warming. I care about environmental pollution and human idiocy and waste.

The planet is too complex for us to fuck with at this moment in time. The best we can do is create a nuclear winter and even that wouldn't register on the grand scheme of Earth history. An ice age would have a longer lasting effect.

What I care about is the Amazon, jungles and forests around the world which are cut down to feed the human demand which is never ending. China, India, South America and Africa are all coming up and they have billions within their borders.

And yet its joe average westerner who needs to give a shit about the world? Sorry I don't buy it. It is another method of raping my wallet and I am sick of it. Go to any recycling centre and you will see a massive profit scheme going on and if you don't abide by their rules they can imprison you and fine you.

Ever washed a tin full of left over food? Now take that tine and multiply it by 1,000,000. You're going to see that many cans washed out with clean drinking water in the UK on average.

How long does one person wash a tin for? At what speed does the water come out of the tap?

Just an example of the blind leading the blind. I don't even bother washing tins unless it is a clean scoop and I don't want rats in my bins either.

Global warming? Talk to me about how El'Nino and the Sun has averse affects on my weekly recycling habits.

Post: #58

(05-27-2015 10:08 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  I'll believe global warming is a problem when the people who tell me its a problem start behaving as if its a problem. When Bill Nye stops taking private jets to climate summits, I'll be a little more considerate with how long I take a shower.

I agree that some of the biggest proponents of the issue engage in some massive hypocrisy, but does that necessarily mean it's all bullshit? Does anyone whose views you agree with do stupid shit part of the time? Not to mention that Bill Nye's or Al Gore's private jet with hookers is nothing compared to CEOs whose companies are drilling holes in the ocean floor, spilling a shitload of oil, and then smiling into the cameras as they pack up their shit and leave. Scale matters. For the record, I don't particularly like either guy.

As others have noted, guys take the "anti-liberal" narrative a little too far. Just because some bearded pussy with a messenger bag, zero percent body fat, and a rolled-up pant leg agrees with something doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. Reminding you guys of that fact reminds me of having conversations with people from that demographic saying that Fox News isn't 100% wrong about everything. People give lip service to "thinking critically," but then default to their team.

It's silly to think that 7 billion humans pumping garbage into a thin layer of gas (the atmosphere) isn't affecting the whole thin layer of gas and what it's meant to do. If you had 7 billion cows--just farting every day--it would make a difference. If one volcano eruption can change climate, 7 billion people throwing their iPhones into the ocean can also. If 30 dudes banging one chick can destroy her for life, 7 billion people fucking an atmosphere every day will take it off-kilter eventually. Guys who will believe a bearded dude in the sky will punish them if they use cuss words will turn around and say there isn't "enough evidence" for global warning.

A lot of weird shit has been happening lately. Just a couple of months ago, on the East Coast of the United States, you had end-of-times levels of snow. It wasn't just a lot, it was some crazy shit that dudes that were there can testify to. At the exact same time, it was 90 degrees in California. Both were records. Records that keep getting broken. The idea that "global climate has always changed" is also a distraction. Yeah, global climate has always changed, but it usually killed off a shitload of animals.

The better question, in my opinion, is whether it matters that the global climate is changing and will probably kill off (at least some) humanity. I'm one of those guys who kinda hopes the glaciers completely melt, flood this fucking planet, and cull this herd down by a huge chunk. It sucks that some of the people most affected will be those who had the least to do with causing the problem, but it seems like that's how it's always been.

One of the worst things that may have ever happened was extending human life expectancy.

Post: #59

(05-28-2015 08:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Sorry Dr. Howard, but your comparison to a notch-count is severely out of place.

Any accredited relationship "expert" & psychologist could claim that his 5 degrees and 20 years of experience as a psychiatrist and successful therapist is going to beat any kind of Game knowledge and Red Pill perception. Dealing with mostly faulty data does not make you an expert.

For example as an economist I know that I could spend the next 2000 years reading study after study of the current neo-liberal economic model - most of those "studies" would support the thesis, but none would even mention interest free monetary policy. So essentially after 2000 years and 500.000 figurative notches I would know shit.

The same wisdom can be applied to many subjects - even and especially medicine. If you never even saw or heard about the fact that you can heal and even reverse serious health conditions via diet and supplements, then you simply don't know.

Always be careful about making statements like: "I know so much more than all of you bunch, so you all better shut up and listen to me!" Anyone has a mind and a reasoning ability and the co-workers of NGOs and administrations are there to not ask questions, do their lobbying job and shut everyone up.

By the way - the chief UN Climate Disruption (they changed the name from Global Cooling in the 1970s, to Global Warming in the 1990s, then to Climate Change in the 00s) is a railway engineer - a man with a figurative million notch count.

I think I understand what you are trying to say Zel,

What I'm attempting to express I think relates to why West Coast would flip out on the finance threads. There is a perspective to be gained from reading the IPCC reports and looking at the data, and then there is a further perspective to be gained from sitting down and talking with the guy who wrote some of the studies and asking him questions....and I don't mean 'going to one of his lectures' where he can't really shoot from the hip but I mean shooting the shit with him in his university office.

I completely agree that there is no sort of 'reputation' or expertise needed to offer an opinion about published data, but I do think that there is some sort of reputation needed to speculate about the motives of scientists or policy makers or influencers.

Remember, I was not a lobbyist paid to carry a message, I was on the assignment of 'who is bullshitting us'. The governor was already carrying the "we need a carbon tax" flag before we even got to work, his aides just wanted to know what the risks are if he really got pushed on it.

I am going to stand by my 'notch count' though if the debate turns to what motivates the people behind the data. Data is empirical and published. The personalities, relationships between funders, speculators and 'having a beer after work' opinions of those people are not and thats what I know.

Consider my opinion like a "Data sheet" on the world of Global warming akin to a "Data sheet" on city x in the Philippines. There is plenty of data available and news stories to be read on the economic conditions and the demographics of said city but there is also a perspective to be gained from visiting that city. I'm saying that I'd like to engage in debate with others who have also visited the city of 'climate change policy and carbon markets' vs. arguing about the publicly available data.

Post: #60

(05-28-2015 12:21 AM)Laurifer Wrote:  Didn't read too heavily into the posts in this thread but I will say this:

Antarctic ice core samples can be drawn to depths that reflect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years into the past.

Within these ice core samples scientists can determine atmospheric CO2 content from the period.

Scientists have determined that the climate has went through numerous cold and hot periods, up until a certain point where the samples were showing a drastic increase in CO2 content, which was coincidentally during... [drum roll]... the Industrial Revolution.

Thank you. To all the naysayers, granted maybe man-made "global warming" isn't quite the monster it's been made out to be, but every time someone brings up this topic as if it's a total "impossibility" humans could be effecting the planet in a negative way, I've always brought the ice core samples into discussion. Both industrial revolutions, as well as wars, and changes in gasoline contents can be measured from those ice samples. Along with things like volcanic activity, etc.

To me that's undeniable science. I do however think the Earth is better at fixing itself than we think, attempting to cleanse itself of the virus humans are on its surface. Before environmentalism and climate change became a political topic, sometime between the Reagan and Bill Clinton era, BOTH sides were on board to "clean up" the environment. Environmental issues have become political because people refuse to see collectively outside the span of their own lifetimes. Good thing astronomers don't do this, otherwise we'd know very little of space, many concepts of which span light years.

What most people don't realize is the majority of energy, thus carbon footprint & GHG (green house gas), used on the Earth is not from vehicles or transportation, but in fact from space conditioning buildings. Having worked 2 years as an energy services specialist, we did 100s of energy assessments ranging from vehicle fleets to large industrial complexes to process targeted assessments to restaurants.

I consider myself conservative yet I believe man-made global warming is definitely a possibility, and I'm certain air quality and various forms of pollution are effecting us, but some of the implementations of change are definitely helping the environment too. To me it's just sad as fuck that something as important as the Earth's environment has become a political issue. Ask yourself this, IF the environmentalists are right about just 30% of what they're saying, how do you reverse the effects once things are fucked up? You don't. Even the liberal clock at Leftists are right twice a day.

Post: #61

(05-28-2015 11:09 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 12:21 AM)Laurifer Wrote:  Didn't read too heavily into the posts in this thread but I will say this:

Antarctic ice core samples can be drawn to depths that reflect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years into the past.

Within these ice core samples scientists can determine atmospheric CO2 content from the period.

Scientists have determined that the climate has went through numerous cold and hot periods, up until a certain point where the samples were showing a drastic increase in CO2 content, which was coincidentally during... [drum roll]... the Industrial Revolution.

Thank you. To all the naysayers, granted maybe man-made "global warming" isn't quite the monster it's been made out to be, but every time someone brings up this topic as if it's a total "impossibility" humans could be effecting the planet in a negative way, I've always brought the ice core samples into discussion. Both industrial revolutions, as well as wars, and changes in gasoline contents can be measured from those ice samples. Along with things like volcanic activity, etc.

To me that's undeniable science.

Like the vast majority of humans, you don't seem to know what good science is. Again, when you see the ice core samples how do you know there's a causation and not merely a correlation there?

Post: #62

I have included an article about Dr. Richard Lindzen. He was an MIT professor and is a legitimate pioneer of climate science. Given that he is retired, he is free to speak out against the global warming hysteria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...atics.html

There is a difference between science and politics. Science is a quest for truth. But global warming is politics - a set of beliefs and policies that support the self interests of an elite.

Post: #63

(05-28-2015 07:25 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 11:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I don't think the science is conclusive at all. Every time someone posts a chart of correlation between CO2 and temp, I ask, "How do we know there's a causation?"

Every single time there's a rise or fall in CO2, there's a rise or fall in temperature (though the peaks and valleys are not a perfect fit). That's pretty damn indicative of causation.



Of course one could argue that it's the opposite that's true - that temperature causes the changes in CO2, but the overwhelming consensus of the planet's scientists says that's not the case.

Consensus is for women, not men who want truth.

As for those charts, all I see is that after the temp rises CO2 rises and when the temp falls CO2 falls.

That's probably because as temperatures fell, living organisms died on Earth and fewer CO2 was produced. Likewise when temp increased then more organisms flourished and CO2 increased.

I mean, if people consider this "science" it's no wonder most of the "developed" world is totally fucked. People are clueless and ignorant, we're in a very bad situation if the masses are so easily fooled.

EDIT:

By the way - "science" is latin for knowledge. You call that chart above knowledge? It would fail a freshman statistics class.

Post: #64

I am all for renewables and alternatives to fossil fuels. The goal of every engineer should be to do more with less. It's a bean counter and sociopathic executive mentality to think constantly replacing consumables are worth it.

I owned a Benz from the mid 80s that had a solid cast iron diesel engine. I got it at 285k and sold it at 385k. The car is still going and won't need a major overhaul until probably around the 500k mark.

Cars and other things need to be built like that. Things with rapid upgrade cycles, like computers, should be more disposable but cheap as well. I expect my Blackberry Classic to last at least two years and cost around 100-200$ without a contract. Anything less is unacceptable.

Finally, I bought a few belts at Target probably 7 months ago. They looked great when I bought them, but sure enough right now the faux cover on the fake leather is flaking and falling off. The thing looks like crap. I paid $20 for them. For $40 I went online and just bought a genuine leather belt that should last me a lifetime with proper care.

We should be maintaining things for years instead of building entirely new things and throwing away old.

Global warming is nothing more than rich people saying, "Austerity for thee and not for me."

Edit: 3000th post, elite keyboard warrior status achieved!

Post: #65

Quote:Every single time there's a rise or fall in CO2, there's a rise or fall in temperature (though the peaks and valleys are not a perfect fit). That's pretty damn indicative of causation.

It's not indicitave of causation.

Evidence for causation involves understanding the individual physical properties and behaviors of the various components of the system. In drugs this is known as describing the "Mechanism of Action."

Specifically, radiation from the sun heats the surface, the surface radiates infrared heat, and greenhouse gasses absorb that heat. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that humans have been releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 150 years. I don't have time to finish this line of reasoning, but you have to close the remaining gaps to confidently causation (ie: that it's CO2 and not some other greenhouse gas; that there's no other effect in addition to greenhouse gasses, etc.)

Post: #66

(05-28-2015 11:09 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  [quote='Laurifer' pid='1030798' dateline='1432790468']
Didn't read too heavily into the posts in this thread but I will say this:

Antarctic ice core samples can be drawn to depths that reflect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years into the past.

Within these ice core samples scientists can determine atmospheric CO2 content from the period.

Thank you. To all the naysayers, granted maybe man-made "global warming" isn't quite the monster it's been made out to be, but every time someone brings up this topic as if it's a total "impossibility" humans could be effecting the planet in a negative way, I've always brought the ice core samples into discussion. Both industrial revolutions, as well as wars, and changes in gasoline contents can be measured from those ice samples. Along with things like volcanic activity, etc.

To me that's undeniable science. I do however think the Earth is better at fixing itself than we think, attempting to cleanse itself of the virus humans are on its surface. Before environmentalism and climate change became a political topic, sometime between the Reagan and Bill Clinton era, BOTH sides were on board to "clean up" the environment. Environmental issues have become political because people refuse to see collectively outside the span of their own lifetimes. Good thing astronomers don't do this, otherwise we'd know very little of space, many concepts of which span light years.

What most people don't realize is the majority of energy, thus carbon footprint & GHG (green house gas), used on the Earth is not from vehicles or transportation, but in fact from space conditioning buildings. Having worked 2 years as an energy services specialist, we did 100s of energy assessments ranging from vehicle fleets to large industrial complexes to process targeted assessments to restaurants.

I consider myself conservative yet I believe man-made global warming is definitely a possibility, and I'm certain air quality and various forms of pollution are effecting us, but some of the implementations of change are definitely helping the environment too. To me it's just sad as fuck that something as important as the Earth's environment has become a political issue. Ask yourself this, IF the environmentalists are right about just 30% of what they're saying, how do you reverse the effects once things are fucked up? You don't. Even the liberal clock at Leftists are right twice a day.

This is a good point to raise, air quality and pollution. I remember a health organization testifying during the state's climate change hearings about the CO2 reduction associated with shutting down coal power plants. One senator asked "well, what if CO2 has no relationship to global warming and we turn off these power plants" and the health organization chair responded.

"Even if CO2 drops from the equation, there is still an incredible human health benefit from shutting down the coal power plant. We have long term studies that heavy metal and fine particulate emissions from these plants are causing asthma and higher cancer rates in those living around the plants today, not at some possible point in the future"

I thought that was an excellent point, that there are many things related to "global warming solutions" that are already good ideas/planet positives before global warming became an environmental issue de jour.

Post: #67

That said... the idea that we can burn a hundred million years of compressed energy in a century and not have some serious worldwide environmental consequences is insane to me, whether you believe the liberal global warming rhetoric or not.

Post: #68

Part of being "red pill" is having critical thinking skills.
That is... evaluating all sides of a debate and coming to your own conclusions.

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.

The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.

Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.

Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.

“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”

http://climate.nasa.gov

Post: #69

(05-28-2015 11:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Like the vast majority of humans, you don't seem to know what good science is. Again, when you see the ice core samples how do you know there's a causation and not merely a correlation there?

My point is it appears to be correlation, as each time it's found in the ice samples of that year's period of introduction into the environment. What we can't be certain of is if it is causation due to the large time frame of results needed to tie it undeniably to human influence.

The quandary is by the time causation is provable, if at all, the effect on the planet, thus on human, animal, and plant life, may be too late to reverse the effects of. Then again, maybe it won't be too late to reverse the effect. It's the unknown that we're gambling with. Is that something worth gambling with is the real question.

Post: #70

(05-28-2015 11:56 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Like the vast majority of humans, you don't seem to know what good science is. Again, when you see the ice core samples how do you know there's a causation and not merely a correlation there?

My point is it appears to be correlation, as each time it's found in the ice samples of that year's period of introduction into the environment. What we can't be certain of is if it is causation due to the large time frame of results needed to tie it undeniably to human influence.

The quandary is by the time causation is provable, if at all, the effect on the planet, thus on human, animal, and plant life, may be too late to reverse the effects of. Then again, maybe it won't be too late to reverse the effect. It's the unknown that we're gambling with. Is that something worth gambling with is the real question.

It doesn't matter if it's worth "gambling", because China, India, and the other 2/3's of the world's population doesn't give a shit.

Either develop new technologies or stop pretending this is a serious issue.

Post: #71

(05-28-2015 11:59 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:56 AM)Ingocnito Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:15 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Like the vast majority of humans, you don't seem to know what good science is. Again, when you see the ice core samples how do you know there's a causation and not merely a correlation there?

My point is it appears to be correlation, as each time it's found in the ice samples of that year's period of introduction into the environment. What we can't be certain of is if it is causation due to the large time frame of results needed to tie it undeniably to human influence.

The quandary is by the time causation is provable, if at all, the effect on the planet, thus on human, animal, and plant life, may be too late to reverse the effects of. Then again, maybe it won't be too late to reverse the effect. It's the unknown that we're gambling with. Is that something worth gambling with is the real question.

It doesn't matter if it's worth "gambling", because China, India, and the other 2/3's of the world's population doesn't give a shit.

Either develop new technologies or stop pretending this is a serious issue.

You are right about India and China.

New technologies are being developed.

And China is getting into solar in a big way. Their smog shrouded cities don't lie:

"China Adds Solar Power the Size of France in First Quarter"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...st-quarter

Post: #72

The Southpark documentary on Al Gore tackles this topic:
   
Half Man, Half Bear, Half Pig

Post: #73

Sorry, it's a much more complex picture than that:

The problem with almost every global warming study is that they aren't really looking at data beyond the 20th century, maybe part of the 19th century if lucky.

READ THIS FIRST:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/research/climate-change


And from another post on the topic:

Quote:I have reviewed the cyclical discoveries of Sallie Baliunas. Ice core samples were taken going back thousands of years and what was discovered is that the sun is indeed a thermal dynamic system that beats like your heart and there is a 300 year cycle between maximum and minimum. Do not confuse short-term trends or local observations for a few decades and assume we have altered the entire planet.

There's also some other interesting connections that he's found: a declining solar output cycle almost always correlates to the fall of the dominant civilization or society during that period.

[/quote]

Post: #74

^^ That graph has no scale for the Y-axis, not useful.

Post: #75

Quote:I agree that some of the biggest proponents of the issue engage in some massive hypocrisy, but does that necessarily mean it's all bullshit? Does anyone whose views you agree with do stupid shit part of the time?

No, it doesn't mean its all bullshit. It simply means the biggest proponents of climate change don't take it seriously enough to change their personal behavior. This hardly helps makes their case to people on the fence or people who actively distrust these leaders already.

I am not a "mainstream conservative". I am against corporate malfeasance and a strong critic of Monsanto and GMO foods effect on the environment. I am against perpetual war also. People on both sides play the "support my team no matter what". It annoys me too Tuth. But good leaders walk the walk. Anti-slavery advocates didn't own slaves. Global warming alarmists shouldn't fly on private jets when taking commercial jets releases less CO2.


My solution is to return to a gold standard. This would create a sustainable world and allow for negative growth in some years that wouldn't destroy society.


Advocates of climate change always advocate more top down control and centralization of power. I promote localization, alternative fuel sources, and cultural promotion of being good stewards of the earth.

The Western Economies are fucked. There very well could be a large die off event.