It's not about science...

C

czygvtwkr

Guest
It always amazes me how people with no scientific background backlash at me when I simply say "I think we don't really know and the earth is such a complicated system that we may never really know, remember in the 80's when margarine was thought to be the healthy alternative to butter?"

When these peoples predictions are not correct (remember how bad the 2006 hurricane season was gonna be?) They simply backtrack and make more excuses than Harold Camping. I keep hearing bull#### like 97% of scientists agree, but when I go to that online petition I can find most of my college professors, some of the smartest, best scientists that I know.

What I can't figure out is how the hell they were so successful, I am guessing that some "propaganda minister" that was good at manipulating the population was consulted.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
What I can't figure out is how the hell they were so successful, .

There is a powerful underlying force that periodically propels this kind of "lemming science"; a long-standing wish, with a long list of constituents and potential beneficiaries, to create mechanisms to transfer wealth from those that have to those that do not. If you look back at the period in the 70s when it was a new ice age that "we" were supposedly causing, you see the same thing.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the north ice cap would disappear within 5 years.

Global temperatures have not risen in 17 years.

These global warming treads need to be moved to the religion forum.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
IS there any kind of evidence of how much more retained heat the Earth now possesses, as opposed to the past?

I'm saying this because, well, I'm a skeptic. Not because a party says I should be, or because I refuse to believe whatever. What I never see is what I intuitively grasp is the essence of the global warming thing - not a measure of temperatures, or rates of melt-off of glaciers or oceans rising or increase in CO2 levels - but an actual measure of the amount of heat retained however briefly, by the Earth?

I mean this in earnest. When I get into discussions on the topic, the moment it's understood that I'm skeptical, most of the verbiage coming my way is just insults without any sort of reasoning or data. OR - I get a LOT of data that doesn't really tell me what I really want to see, which is a quantifiable measure of our industrial output of gases and the amount of heat retained before it is inevitably lost to space.

I can see most of the climate change arguments, and some of them are rational. What I don't see is:

1. A policy that we unilaterally can do to effect ANY change in things like CO2 emissions. For instance, it doesn't do industrialized nations ANY good to incur a HUGE cost to reduce emissions if other nations either do not comply or are free to NEVER comply. It's like digging a hole and someone else is just filling it in at the same time.

2. Any technology that would measurably reverse or mitigate the measured change in climate. Basically, I don't see that we can do much to stop it.

3. Point for point proof of increased industrial output causing the change. What I do see is many data points trending alike - I do not see data showing this causes this. Because if it were so, we could guess what the data will be next year - and we can't seem to do that.

..and so on. I am skeptical - but I am willing to believe the reasoning is sound. It doesn't seem like science at all if predictions NEVER come true, or are never in the ballpark of what actually happens.

I don't believe we're having no effect on the world, but my gut still says our contribution is far too small to make that much of a difference. To me it's like me peeing in the ocean and raising ocean levels - I am sure it affects it SOMEWHAT, but not significantly.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
..and it certainly is not settled. But it sure is a rigid and dogmatic religion, this "Climate Change" thing.


It is a fascinating study in human behavior as the intellectual 'elites' denounce traditional religion for being anti science, anti reason and dark age hysterics while, at the same time, are creating their own religion replete with all it's leaps of faith and reason and the nasty edge directed at heretics.

Maybe they'll have their own little reformation in a few hundred years? Gore is already their Pope. Their climate models are their miraculous conception and the switching back and forth between heat and cold and 'change' is their resurrection, the explanation of all loose ends.

Really interesting how similar we all are as we struggle to argue otherwise, ain't it?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I can see most of the climate change arguments, and some of them are rational. .

That's it. ANY climate argument should begin with 'man is impacting the environment'. From there, it all falls apart as the two sides retreat to their wishes. Next SHOULD be "how much?" and then "is that good or bad?" and then "What can be done?" and then "what should be done?"

The chicken littles go straight to 'too much' 'bad' and 'everything'
The anti's go to 'none worth mentioning' 'doesn't matter' and 'nothing'.

The human condition.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The anti's go to 'none worth mentioning' 'doesn't matter' and 'nothing'.

Or people like me are accused of such by not falling totally in line. It's like being called an atheist when you merely have doubts. Most die-hard atheists I know really don't have any doubts regarding God.

I can SEE data showing CO2 ppm increasing over time. But it still doesn't *mean* anything to me.

Give you an example - I used to work for health physics at Harvard many years ago, and part of my daily equipment was some kind of Geiger counter. We were generally advised to turn the audio part off - it was VERY helpful when you were trying to locate a bit of contamination, but the sound alone freaked people out. Almost always, there would be a slight "tick, tick" *all* the time. Because of what we call background radiation. It's always there. It's very small. If you increased it by several orders of magnitude, it STILL wouldn't hurt you, and depending on how sensitive I set the audio, it usually sounded worse than really was.

If someone were to tell me that background radiation had DOUBLED in the last fifty years due to radioactive element use - MY reaction (without specifics on what KIND of contamination there was, but just gamma and beta background) - my reaction would be "so the hell what?". Because increasing it by ten times would still be insignificant. Maybe even a hundred or more. NOT a big deal. Maybe your chances of getting cancer would go from one in a million to two in a million.

My biggest beef with the climate crowd is - they really haven't been even close to accurately predicting the outcome of all this, but we're supposed to bet the farm on their latest projection. If they were asking us to do something TRIVIAL to save the world, I'd shrug it off. We don't use CFC's anymore, but their loss really never affected anything I ever did. But they keep claiming the world will end if we don't do some crazy useless stunt and their track record of accuracy just plain sucks.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
My biggest beef with the climate crowd is - they really haven't been even close to accurately predicting the outcome of all this, but we're supposed to bet the farm on their latest projection. .

They are, in practice, anti science. It is awful. It's like being a conservative and being blamed for the Bush years which were anything but. This is the real harm; destroying the credibility and faith and trust in science.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
IS there any kind of evidence of how much more retained heat the Earth now possesses, as opposed to the past?

Look up "Roman Climate Optimum."

The world was warmer, and it was GREAT for humanity. More food, thriving civilizations.
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
NOT a big deal. Maybe your chances of getting cancer would go from one in a million to two in a million.

OMG it increases peoples chance of getting cancer by 100%, what kind of monster are you!
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
OMG it increases peoples chance of getting cancer by 100%, what kind of monster are you!

Which is precisely why you can't take statistics at face value until you observe what's being measured and how they are doing it.

I remember reading a few days ago how counties that showed the biggest increase in food stamp consumption were Republican - but almost every county reported was a small county with small changes,
as opposed to huge urban centers that added tens of thousands over the same time period.

It also supported another one of my life axioms - you're always being manipulated.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out

Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.

See, that is heartwarming. Pete and Vrail swear 70% of us are idiots. This poll suggests only 20% of us are. Now, 17% are at risk of being idiots but, even if they are, that's still less than 50% and nowhere near 70%.

Good news!
 

Toxick

Splat
..and so on. I am skeptical - but I am willing to believe the reasoning is sound. It doesn't seem like science at all if predictions NEVER come true, or are never in the ballpark of what actually happens.



I'm going to respond in the most scientific and objective way possible.



YOU SUCK!

If you disagree that Global Warming is REAL and CAUSED BY MAN then you are a shill for the Republican tea-party racist corporation-loving propaganda-feeding right-wing media hate machine!
















Now that, my friends, is Science!
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
See, that is heartwarming. Pete and Vrail swear 70% of us are idiots. This poll suggests only 20% of us are. Now, 17% are at risk of being idiots but, even if they are, that's still less than 50% and nowhere near 70%.

Good news!

I didn't know you were a statistician too..?
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
It always amazes me how people with no scientific background backlash at me when I simply say "I think we don't really know and the earth is such a complicated system that we may never really know, remember in the 80's when margarine was thought to be the healthy alternative to butter?"

Ask them what effect a tax on gasoline will have on the climate.
 

GregV814

Well-Known Member
aside from the political scope, why do we have to pay for global environmental improvements? And what will the money do EXCEPT line the pockets of the AlGorians? Ah! the answer lay within.
 
Top