Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Well - maybe some day the planet will start paying attention to experts « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20103
Offline
#45 : September 13, 2013, 10:17:58 AM

It is scientific consensus. That's good enough for me until I hear some information that gives me reason to think there's a different explanation.

But, for your benefit.... the science, as I understand it looks at a correlation between increases of C02, methane, and other potential "greenhouse gases"... The increasing levels of those gases in our atmosphere would be expected to have a heating effect (science again). Observations using scientific measurements have shown that to be occurring. Humans are the ones creating the increases in these gases. The missing piece is causation.

But there is no missing causal link to many, that's the point . . . .it's missing in science but not in the hearts and minds of many, including many he use it for their own agenda/gain

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#46 : September 13, 2013, 10:21:23 AM

The part that is clear is those who warranted man made global would remove the ice cap from the poles this year were wrong. Of course when I was growing up we were being assured the cooling that was taking place was going to lead to another ice age.  Clearly that point didn't occur.
That's not true. The "global cooling" thing was a very was short-lived controversy, and NEVER broadly accepted by science. One guy published a paper and Time magazine ran a cover, and there was some interest for awhile. This is one of the most facile and anti-factual arguments that climate deniers issue.

As for global warming, it is supported by 97% of the peer-reviewed science on the subject for the last 20+ years. That is a fact.

It is settled science, and for every data point you can show that allegedly disproves it, there are probably hundreds that reaffirm it. Also, year to year fluctuations are normal and expected, but if you were to put all the various measurements onto graphs, the trend over time is undeniably in support of global warming, and the scientific CONSENSUS is that it is caused by humans. These are all facts, undisputed, unless you are listening to the Koch Bros. funded echo chambers of the Tea Party and FauxNooz.
Well - actually both of the statements I made are completely true.  There is ice at that poles, and quite a bit of it.  And the report(s) of global cooling was being offered as viable when I was growing up.  So - if you can accept ice at the poles and this being 2013 that point is correct.  Then, since you acknowledged the reports of global cooling - I suspect my comment was again right.


Let me restate. It is true that "global cooling" was an idea floated in the 70's. My point, which you chose to ignore, is that it was never accepted science. The lifespan on that discussion was pretty brief. On the other hand, global warming has been studied for 20+ years, it is accepted science by the vast vast majority of those who study climate. There's no fair comparison between the global cooling discussion and the global warming discussion. Any fair-minded individual can see that.
Let you restate the point I was making that you declared untrue - I don't think so.  What I said is correct.  What you said you may defend yourself and remake to your hearts delight.  And given the responses I have seen from others - pack a lunch - you are going to be a while.  The voting on science point you made went over like the proverbial turd in a punchbowl.
: September 13, 2013, 10:24:04 AM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31614
Offline
#47 : September 13, 2013, 10:41:01 AM

"The science is settled."

I heard it was settled when it was "Anthropogenic Global Warming". Then it was settled *again* when it was suddenly changed to "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change"?

If I didn't know better it nearly sounds like someone's trying to hedge their bets.

Maybe it's that same politician that claims "the science is settled" lest the masses discover it's less about 'settled science" and more about "Do as I say and not as I do". 

BTW..will that be cash or check?

Also, can I interest you in our "Never Ending Threat from Terrorism" plan?

That too can be paid in annual installments.

lol


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#48 : September 13, 2013, 12:07:39 PM

It is scientific consensus. That's good enough for me until I hear some information that gives me reason to think there's a different explanation.

But, for your benefit.... the science, as I understand it looks at a correlation between increases of C02, methane, and other potential "greenhouse gases"... The increasing levels of those gases in our atmosphere would be expected to have a heating effect (science again). Observations using scientific measurements have shown that to be occurring. Humans are the ones creating the increases in these gases. The missing piece is causation.

But there is no missing causal link to many, that's the point . . . .it's missing in science but not in the hearts and minds of many, including many he use it for their own agenda/gain
Understood, but there's lots of subjects in which we are unable to literally prove causation. If we have a scientific understanding of certain types of reactions, and observations are highly correlated with the expected results, isn't it prudent to treat it as a causal relationship if the stakes are high? Also, how could we ever prove causation with climate? Just as a practical matter, the best science could really do is show high correlation.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


Runole

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 8987
Offline
#49 : September 13, 2013, 12:15:34 PM

It is scientific consensus. That's good enough for me until I hear some information that gives me reason to think there's a different explanation.

But, for your benefit.... the science, as I understand it looks at a correlation between increases of C02, methane, and other potential "greenhouse gases"... The increasing levels of those gases in our atmosphere would be expected to have a heating effect (science again). Observations using scientific measurements have shown that to be occurring. Humans are the ones creating the increases in these gases. The missing piece is causation.

But there is no missing causal link to many, that's the point . . . .it's missing in science but not in the hearts and minds of many, including many he use it for their own agenda/gain
Understood, but there's lots of subjects in which we are unable to literally prove causation. If we have a scientific understanding of certain types of reactions, and observations are highly correlated with the expected results, isn't it prudent to treat it as a causal relationship if the stakes are high? Also, how could we ever prove causation with climate? Just as a practical matter, the best science could really do is show high correlation.


That is not scientific fact...   Stakes are high?    You mean those that have predicted at the current global warming rate NY City will be under 10 feet of water?  when the actually data shows that it won't be more than 7 inches if the current rates continue.... 


Also, how could we ever prove causation with climate?    Yes!   Now  you are beginning to understand the most critical point.    Unfortunately that majority opinion claims it not only knows causation but actually claims throwing money or grabbing money from taxpayers will cure the problem?   

buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#50 : September 13, 2013, 12:19:02 PM


Let you restate the point I was making that you declared untrue - I don't think so.  What I said is correct.  What you said you may defend yourself and remake to your hearts delight.  And given the responses I have seen from others - pack a lunch - you are going to be a while.  The voting on science point you made went over like the proverbial turd in a punchbowl.

I'm not sure what you mean by "voting on science".

Global cooling was an idea floated very briefly in the 70's and was never accepted science. On the other hand, global warming has been studied for 20+ years, it is accepted science by the vast vast majority of those who study climate. There's no fair comparison between the global cooling discussion and the global warming discussion. This was my point regarding your statement on cooling.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#51 : September 13, 2013, 12:28:46 PM

It is scientific consensus. That's good enough for me until I hear some information that gives me reason to think there's a different explanation.

But, for your benefit.... the science, as I understand it looks at a correlation between increases of C02, methane, and other potential "greenhouse gases"... The increasing levels of those gases in our atmosphere would be expected to have a heating effect (science again). Observations using scientific measurements have shown that to be occurring. Humans are the ones creating the increases in these gases. The missing piece is causation.

But there is no missing causal link to many, that's the point . . . .it's missing in science but not in the hearts and minds of many, including many he use it for their own agenda/gain
Understood, but there's lots of subjects in which we are unable to literally prove causation. If we have a scientific understanding of certain types of reactions, and observations are highly correlated with the expected results, isn't it prudent to treat it as a causal relationship if the stakes are high? Also, how could we ever prove causation with climate? Just as a practical matter, the best science could really do is show high correlation.


That is not scientific fact...   Stakes are high?    You mean those that have predicted at the current global warming rate NY City will be under 10 feet of water?  when the actually data shows that it won't be more than 7 inches if the current rates continue.... 


Also, how could we ever prove causation with climate?    Yes!   Now  you are beginning to understand the most critical point.    Unfortunately that majority opinion claims it not only knows causation but actually claims throwing money or grabbing money from taxpayers will cure the problem?

I've always understood this point. But just because causation is impossible to demonstrate, doesn't mean that there isn't causation. If the correlation is high enough, doesn't it make sense to act? And if you're concerned about money grabs, how about the oil industry and their vested interest in creating doubt about global warming? Also, there's plenty of information available already of impacts of the heating planet. Wouldn't it be prudent to consider the impact to agriculture, for example?

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#52 : September 13, 2013, 02:04:04 PM

 "just because causation is impossible to demonstrate, doesn't mean that there isn't causation"

It also doesn't mean there is causation. I see that you didn't respond to '"substances precipitate out of solution dependant on temperature and vapor pressure." Are you not interested in discussing any science that doesn't fit your preconceived paradigm? A separately caused rise in temperature would cause CO2 levels to rise in response. Were the inverse correlation true, the temperature would be several hundred degrees now. Since I'm not dead, it would seem the causation you presume is not supported.

Were you aware that the primary method by which carbon is removed from the atmosphere is through forests? Burning those forests releases all of the carbon they had consumed. We have destroyed eighty percent of the world's forests. During that period, atmospheric CO2 has skyrocketed. Would you have us believe this is entirely coincidental, and that increasing CO2 levels are a problem of industrialized nations? Increased CO2 levels are man-made alright, but there is no evidence they are anything other than a minor factor in global weather patterns. The missing forests have a much larger direct effect, and are also responsible for the rising CO2 and methane levels.

On a related note, mankind has been through many "ages." The bronze age, iron age, industrial age, information age. Coming next, the genetic age. The majority of genetic material was in the rain forests. The greatest resource this planet will ever have is currently being destroyed at a record pace.

And what is the plan to correct this situation? Collect some cash on carbon credits. Brilliant. Face it, for all the talk from you idealists, bottom line is you don't have the nads to do what it takes. Until you're ready to go into these areas and take these resources away from those who are squandering them, all your global warming talk is nothing but hot air.

Don't worry though. Nature will fix our population problem. Take care of that imaginary global warming problem, too. Mom's gonna fix it all soon. Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it oughta be.

Not sure how many more chances this ignorant species will have to get it right. Not sure how many more they deserve.

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#53 : September 13, 2013, 04:04:14 PM


Let you restate the point I was making that you declared untrue - I don't think so.  What I said is correct.  What you said you may defend yourself and remake to your hearts delight.  And given the responses I have seen from others - pack a lunch - you are going to be a while.  The voting on science point you made went over like the proverbial turd in a punchbowl.

I'm not sure what you mean by "voting on science".

Global cooling was an idea floated very briefly in the 70's and was never accepted science. On the other hand, global warming has been studied for 20+ years, it is accepted science by the vast vast majority of those who study climate. There's no fair comparison between the global cooling discussion and the global warming discussion. This was my point regarding your statement on cooling.
Choosing not to believe what you would have them believe.  Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Global cooling is now acknowledged to have existed.  Great - that is the point I made - lightheartedly at that point.  Note I didn't ask for your point.  I simply asked you not restate what I said in your terms. 

And there is still ice on the poles right?  And this is 2013 iirc.  My other risky statement seems fairly safe as well. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20103
Offline
#54 : September 14, 2013, 01:15:53 PM

It is scientific consensus. That's good enough for me until I hear some information that gives me reason to think there's a different explanation.

But, for your benefit.... the science, as I understand it looks at a correlation between increases of C02, methane, and other potential "greenhouse gases"... The increasing levels of those gases in our atmosphere would be expected to have a heating effect (science again). Observations using scientific measurements have shown that to be occurring. Humans are the ones creating the increases in these gases. The missing piece is causation.

But there is no missing causal link to many, that's the point . . . .it's missing in science but not in the hearts and minds of many, including many he use it for their own agenda/gain
Understood, but there's lots of subjects in which we are unable to literally prove causation. If we have a scientific understanding of certain types of reactions, and observations are highly correlated with the expected results, isn't it prudent to treat it as a causal relationship if the stakes are high?

There are entire industries formed and laws passed and tax schemes created around something for which you acknowledge: a) there is no causal link AND b)  there is no proof the stakes are even high.  If you are concerned that people are not giving proper consideration to a risk, you might want to think about all the charlatans creating industries, passing laws and creating taxes.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46214
Offline
#55 : September 14, 2013, 02:20:16 PM

Oh nos - the implication of conspiracy... kind of like a criminal venture?

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7092
Offline
#56 : September 14, 2013, 05:49:25 PM

The "settled science" was more akin to an incestuous relationship with one person citing a source, which in turn cites another and you follow a path that eventually leads you back to the original source, The "settled science" was also a means to shut up dissent. From the get go there were questions about the so called evidence until eventually the data used to prove the "settled science" turned out to be not only flawed, but almost conjured up. Then the goal posts started moving. Sea levels rising, to drought, to extreme weather conditions, cold, blizzards! etc etc etc

The whole global warming thing was driven by socio-political idealogues who saw as a means to achieve goals they knew they would never achieve via the normal ballot box. Notice the solutions always seemed to be a massive transfer of wealth? Just saying.

buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#57 : September 14, 2013, 09:34:19 PM

The "settled science" was more akin to an incestuous relationship with one person citing a source, which in turn cites another and you follow a path that eventually leads you back to the original source, The "settled science" was also a means to shut up dissent. From the get go there were questions about the so called evidence until eventually the data used to prove the "settled science" turned out to be not only flawed, but almost conjured up. Then the goal posts started moving. Sea levels rising, to drought, to extreme weather conditions, cold, blizzards! etc etc etc

The whole global warming thing was driven by socio-political idealogues who saw as a means to achieve goals they knew they would never achieve via the normal ballot box. Notice the solutions always seemed to be a massive transfer of wealth? Just saying.

That is over-the-top paranoia. My brother has studied the subject extensively at the University of Colorado as a PhD candidate. I'm pretty sure he's not part of some conspiracy, yet his research indicates that global warming is happening. I still have a hard time fathoming how so many people can so deeply distrust the findings of the scientific community because they're reaching conclusions that are inconvenient or unpleasant, or might require governments to act. I mean, I get that anything that involves governments to possibly act and spend money is reason for conservatives to be su**CENSORED**ious. I mean, I don't share that level of paranoia, but I get it... What I don't understand is how the work of thousands of scientists, most of whom are working with integrity and honesty in the pursuit of understanding, can be so easily dismissed because of anti-government paranoia.

And I would also ask, where is the dissent in the scientific community? Wouldn't they be reaching different conclusions? If they were, why is it that, of the 14,000+ peer-reviewed studies in the last 20+ years, less than 3% rebut global warming? Why is it that the only dissenters we hear about publicly are on the payroll of big oil or big coal?

If the science could be rebutted, why wouldn't the fossil fuel industries be funding their own science to disprove it?... Oh yeah, guess what, the Koch Bros. tried that and their independent scientist studied the subject and came back with information consistent with global warming. That happened.

By the way, the goal posts were never moved, as you say. I've been reading on the subject for 10-15 years myself, and erratic weather of all kinds has always been a part of the effects that were expected. That's the truth. There has never been deviation in that regard. Sometimes short term projections are not born out, and deniers latch on to those as "proof". Short term weather patterns vary but the longer term trends remain. And believe it or not, an historically cold winter can also be a symptom of global warming.

If there's a power grab or conspiracy going on, it can be found in the fossil-fuel industry's efforts to disinform and create hostility towards the subject. In that regard, they have succeeded, as evidenced by every other poster on this board. And I was accused of group-think by one of them. Ironic. Painfully ironic.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#58 : September 14, 2013, 09:53:40 PM

It is scientific consensus. That's good enough for me until I hear some information that gives me reason to think there's a different explanation.

But, for your benefit.... the science, as I understand it looks at a correlation between increases of C02, methane, and other potential "greenhouse gases"... The increasing levels of those gases in our atmosphere would be expected to have a heating effect (science again). Observations using scientific measurements have shown that to be occurring. Humans are the ones creating the increases in these gases. The missing piece is causation.

But there is no missing causal link to many, that's the point . . . .it's missing in science but not in the hearts and minds of many, including many he use it for their own agenda/gain
Understood, but there's lots of subjects in which we are unable to literally prove causation. If we have a scientific understanding of certain types of reactions, and observations are highly correlated with the expected results, isn't it prudent to treat it as a causal relationship if the stakes are high?

There are entire industries formed and laws passed and tax schemes created around something for which you acknowledge: a) there is no causal link AND b)  there is no proof the stakes are even high.  If you are concerned that people are not giving proper consideration to a risk, you might want to think about all the charlatans creating industries, passing laws and creating taxes.

I did not acknowledge there is no causal link. What I acknowledge is that demonstrating causality with something as vast as climate is virtually impossible. That does not say there is no causal link. What I know is that science can demonstrate the effect of these gases in controlled situations. I also know that they can project the effects of certain concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere as the gases are increased. I can also say that the expected increases in average temperature over time are occurring as these gases increase at rates far beyond anything known to have occurred before. So, I would call this a high correlation that strongly suggests causality. I would also say that the organizations that exist to study climate are firmly in the camp of anthropogenic global warming existing and getting worse... These are the experts. You call them charlatans for some reason.

The charlatans I am more concerned about are those in the fossil-fuel industries who will spend ungodly sums of money (far beyond scientific research money) in order to cause su**CENSORED**ion and doubt in the minds of the public.

And, as for the stakes, if the science is correct, and you know I believe it is, we are looking at major disruptions in our way of life. It's not just rising tides and drowning polar bears. It's disruption of our supplies of food and water. One real world example that I know is already occurring in agriculture is that coffee growers in South and Central America that have been growing at certain altitude for decades or longer are finding it increasingly difficult to grow due to the greater heat... So they're going to have to move to higher altitudes to produce the same quality and yields. This is actually happening. Now think about all the food staples that might be similarly impacted, and probably already are but we don't hear about it. Think that's not gonna be expensive to every human on the planet? And that's just the start.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7092
Offline
#59 : September 14, 2013, 10:12:11 PM

The "settled science" was more akin to an incestuous relationship with one person citing a source, which in turn cites another and you follow a path that eventually leads you back to the original source, The "settled science" was also a means to shut up dissent. From the get go there were questions about the so called evidence until eventually the data used to prove the "settled science" turned out to be not only flawed, but almost conjured up. Then the goal posts started moving. Sea levels rising, to drought, to extreme weather conditions, cold, blizzards! etc etc etc

The whole global warming thing was driven by socio-political idealogues who saw as a means to achieve goals they knew they would never achieve via the normal ballot box. Notice the solutions always seemed to be a massive transfer of wealth? Just saying.

That is over-the-top paranoia.

Not really. If you look back, the leading lights of socialist politics became leading lights in the environment movement. Not only from a political perspective but fin the corridors or academia as well. The founder of Green Peace left because it swamped with socialist activists after the wall came down.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Well - maybe some day the planet will start paying attention to experts « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools