Climate change - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-19-2008, 04:12 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
You mean the consensus about general relativity that we need to gather more evidence and tests because it's incomplete, as evidenced by its fundamental conflict with quantum mechanics?

If "the debate isn't over" until scientists are done gathering evidence and conducting tests, then by not even your standard can we accept gravity.
You're talking about the theory of everything which includes string theory. With gravity we can predict how gravity affects objects much better than people who predict a 10 year point of no return and then a cooling spell forces them to redress the error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Of course we do, because the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the practical conclusions of general relativity. Parallels....

Link

But we need much more consensus? Zero is too high?
False premise. It's not zero. There are people who used to be on the IPCC and quit because the policy abstract is highly politicized and negative views were kicked out. But I guess some people are more "scientists" than others including "reviewers".
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:23 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I think you're forcing juxtapositions on issues.
No, I'm showing you how your premise is wrong. If we went by your standard half the things you speak about, hell the majority of what you speak about wouldn't hold water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Does anybody want to pay huge taxes for Al Gore's businesses without solid science? I'm sure believers would get a bad taste in their mouth if years later an entire government apparatus was erected for the mere purpose to fleece citizens. (Hello new religion?!)
Gore didn't invent global warming people have been talking about for decades. Do you honestly believe we have absolutely no impact on the planet? Just look at the last Olympics they had to shut down certain parts of the city in order to try and clean the air, long distance athletes had to prepare for the difference in air quality. You think that was caused by El Nino?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Nobody is seriously debating whether smoking is good for you or not. We even have solid evidence that second hand smoking is bad for you.
Wanna bet, Iron Horse posts a thread about once every three months about how smoking isn't bad for you, and the science of second hand smoke is trumped up. So, like I said there will always be dissenting "scientists".
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 05:57 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Altering details within the framework of a theory is not the same as attacking the framework itself. Same deal with evolution: no one should see the disagreement between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism as an attack on the central idea.

Quote:
False premise. It's not zero. There are people who used to be on the IPCC and quit because the policy abstract is highly politicized and negative views were kicked out. But I guess some people are more "scientists" than others including "reviewers".
No one denying human-based global warming was published in a scientific journal between 1993 and 2003. Here's the key- scientists who throw out/update the status quo with well-reasoned, testable results are made famous, not punished. Case in point: Einstein.

It's like complaining that people who exhibit ESP or psychic abilities are being unfairly prejudiced by scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth! Any scientist would love to be the one who radically redefined our knowledge of the mind. The only problem is, none of these psychics ever pass a rigorous test. We judge psychics accordingly.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 08:02 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
no one should see the disagreement between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism as an attack on the central idea.
Do you want to start some shit?

We can have a Darwin War
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 12:53 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Do you want to start some shit?

We can have a Darwin War


WAR

Let's skip the arguing and go straight to the name calling.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 02:41 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Punk-Eek isn't revolutionary
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 03:36 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:25 AM
You're a punk.

Seriously though, do I have that mistaken? I've usually heard the argument made in the context of a creationism v. evolution debate that because Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins couldn't get their shit together that evolution as a whole is flimsy.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 08:35 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Yeah, the debate is about the tempo and mode of evolution, if the form of animals which make up populations constantly changes or goes in fits and starts, the traditional explanation has been that the gaps in the fossil record are the reason for the apparent rapid emergence of new species but punctuated equilibrium treated it as a character of evolution, rather than a bias in the record. This contrasts with the well established gradualistic change that is observed in some high fidelity assemblages (e.g. the tests from planktonic foraminifera which preserve a continuous record of gradual change).

The debate was about the dynamics of evolution in biological systems, not the fact of evolution, it is about interpreting how the evolution that is observed in the fossil record operated.

Looking back with an entry level perspective it seems that Gould was a great writer, and self-promoter, who successfully spun a controversy which drove some cool research. I've just started on a side-project of making a computer model of an evolutionary system, my biggest fantasy is that it could show the conditions which generate punctuated change versus continuous incremental change, the benefit of this is that I am going over my undergraduate textbooks all over again, and am being forced to consider the mathematics of evolution in an abstract fashion - it's giving me a good idea of my substantial, yet not insurmountable, ignorance (I am sitting at about 10/100 on any mastery scale).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:27 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
The debate was about the dynamics of evolution in biological systems, not the fact of evolution, it is about interpreting how the evolution that is observed in the fossil record operated.
That sort of matches what I intended to say in my post you quoted. Maybe I wrote a little sloppily.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:32 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
No, I'm showing you how your premise is wrong. If we went by your standard half the things you speak about, hell the majority of what you speak about wouldn't hold water.
Based on what I read from Lindzen and how the conclusions had been made the argument is a rushed and simplfied argument to blame man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Gore didn't invent global warming people have been talking about for decades. Just look at the last Olympics they had to shut down certain parts of the city in order to try and clean the air, long distance athletes had to prepare for the difference in air quality. You think that was caused by El Nino?
This has to do with dirty air. C02 is not poisonous. We have cleaner air than they do only because we have better technologies to burn fuel. Why do you think acid rain reduced enormously after the iron curtain fell? If you want to improve air quality countries need to be rich so they can afford better technologies and still have a decent standard of living at the same time. Even the haze that comes from warm weather is partly made up of Ozone naturally. Not all haze is pure pollutant.

BTW Gore popularized the man made Global Warming theory with the help of Hansen who has been involved in bad temperature measurements already. Those scientists that influenced him told him that there was only a 10 year window for action. That means 2015 should be the point of no return. People remember this and will point it out when the time comes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Do you honestly believe we have absolutely no impact on the planet?
This question is the problem here and is in fact what many scientists have concluded. "It must be us." The question is not if we have an impact or whether C02 has an impact. The question is how much impact do we really have? The stupid computer models don't include a whole bunch of variables like El Nino so they inaccurately predict the future. That should already be an alarm bell. We are decarbonizing with better more efficient technologies slowly over time and we will continue to do so but rashly increasing taxes and costs to transfer wealth to poorer countries that are corrupt is bad economics based on inadequate climate studies. Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen are studying the cooling effect in the atmosphere that they have recorded and they should do further studies before we assume that the greenhouse model is even correct as is simplified in explanation. If the public knew that we had an impact that was much smaller than projected on computer models by the alarmists there would be much less push to change our economy than there is now. That I think is the reason for alarmist computer models. Looking at Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist he already had huge evidence and actual quotes from people in WWF and other groups admitting that they exagerrate environmental problems to bring in more funding and get more prompt attention. This "cry wolf" problem is another reason why people are skeptical. What is ethical about scientists lying to the public no matter what their intentions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Wanna bet, Iron Horse posts a thread about once every three months about how smoking isn't bad for you, and the science of second hand smoke is trumped up. So, like I said there will always be dissenting "scientists".
Yeah Iron Horse is so influential. We have scans of lungs going through second hand smoke only and the lung differences are obvious. If you look at smoke in general (burnt organic material) you'll find that countries that have to burn wood as a main source of fuel have more damaged lungs. We also have some scientists that have discovered genes that if present in certain human beings lead to cancer by being "turned on" when that individual smokes. That's why some people with more tolerant genes can live a long time smoking.

Blaming man's contribution of C02 when water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas is another problem. Richard Somerville already admitted that they don't understand the workings of water vapour fully but feels there is enough evidence to blame man. I don't think the majority of the atmosphere should be ignored before we commit funds. It also doesn't help that the year 1998 was supposed to be the hottest on record really wasn't because many of the thermometers were near air conditioning units and the results had to be changed. We have more man made C02 than in the 30's but the 30's were hotter. I think the science is desperate and the people who supposedly believe in this are not living the lifestyles they are telling everyone else to do which is another alarm bell.

What's the point of blaming oil companies when they supply us with the cheapest source of energy WE DEMAND. It's just to scapegoat "evil corporations" because it's politically incorrect to judge individual voters who demand cheap energy. In fact I'm going to start a positive thread on the environment because I'm tired of people talking about the environment and what other people should do but are burning more fuel than I am. The hypocrisy makes my blood boil. Who the heck is going to weather strip and upgrade their houses when they haven't even paid off their mortgages yet?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 01:38 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Altering details within the framework of a theory is not the same as attacking the framework itself.

It's like complaining that people who exhibit ESP or psychic abilities are being unfairly prejudiced by scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth! Any scientist would love to be the one who radically redefined our knowledge of the mind. The only problem is, none of these psychics ever pass a rigorous test. We judge psychics accordingly.
Read my post #20 in this thread, especially Richard Lindzen's more detailed description of the greenhouse effect. The IPCC is simplifying the greenhouse framework and Lindzen is not. If there is an element of cooling in the atmosphere that is being measured we should do many more studies because if there is a cooling mechanism in the atmosphere the computer models will be really inaccurate.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2008, 07:11 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Besides the IPCC, the product of several thousand reviewers, the following organizations endorsed the consensus:

Link
Quote:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Academies of Science from 19 countries

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus:

* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In all fairness though, one dude disagrees. For me, in the absence of personal qualifications on this topic choosing Richard Lindzen over the accumulated weight of these bodies is simply irrational.

In super double fairness, further reading suggest the number of published journals rejecting human based global warming is not zero- it's probably ~27. And some of them might be a little questionable.
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2008, 12:33 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Environmentalists need to study economics more (other than Karl Marx) if they want to see real success.
Watermelons
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting 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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com