RE: No consensus on global warming

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: No consensus on global warming

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: No consensus on global warming

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 8:06:46 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I clicked that link. I do not have any objection to getting my facts from a popular science article, but that newspaper article merely reports the opinion of a science adviser. I did not read anything beyond the headline and the first sentences, but that was sufficient: it does not convince me.

...the relevant fact is that the science advisor to the Bush government has finally come out and publically stated what most in the scientific community have been saying for ages. Manmade impact on global warming is more than 90% likely........now it is reasonable that people may disagree on what, if anything, can be done about it....but denying that manmade impact is pure ostrich position.

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 81

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 8:23:03 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...the relevant fact is that the science advisor to the Bush government has finally come out and publically stated what most in the scientific community have been saying for ages. Manmade impact on global warming is more than 90% likely........now it is reasonable that people may disagree on what, if anything, can be done about it....but denying that manmade impact is pure ostrich position.

It is not relevant at all. It is very bad science. Run of the mill scientists can only be relied upon to interpret correctly the facts pertaining to known phenomena. Global warming is an unknown phenomenon. Most likely the interpretation of those ordinary scientists therefore is wrong.

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 82

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 9:15:05 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I clicked that link. I do not have any objection to getting my facts from a popular science article, but that newspaper article merely reports the opinion of a science adviser. I did not read anything beyond the headline and the first sentences, but that was sufficient: it does not convince me.

...the relevant fact is that the science advisor to the Bush government has finally come out and publically stated what most in the scientific community have been saying for ages. Manmade impact on global warming is more than 90% likely........now it is reasonable that people may disagree on what, if anything, can be done about it....but denying that manmade impact is pure ostrich position.

Philosophy, I think we know what they'll say can be done about it. lol
And it's not 90% certain but 100% certain that it will (of course) involve U.S. Taxpayer dollars.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 83

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 9:50:33 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...the relevant fact is that the science advisor to the Bush government has finally come out and publically stated what most in the scientific community have been saying for ages. Manmade impact on global warming is more than 90% likely........now it is reasonable that people may disagree on what, if anything, can be done about it....but denying that manmade impact is pure ostrich position.

It is not relevant at all. It is very bad science. Run of the mill scientists can only be relied upon to interpret correctly the facts pertaining to known phenomena. Global warming is an unknown phenomenon. Most likely the interpretation of those ordinary scientists therefore is wrong.

......interesting logical stand. So, according to you if a phenomenon is novel (ie hitherto unknown) then no normal scientist can be relied upon to correctly interpret any data pertaining to it.
Ok, perhaps true.......so where is an extraordinary scientist who can? Or is your argument that no scientist can be trusted to correctly interpret the data and thus no phenomenon is actually happening?
The relevant fact is not that a scientist comes out and says they believe manmade global warming to be a 90% probability......too many scientists have already said that for that to be newsworthy...the relevant fact is that a scientist who works for a politician that has assiduously attempted to suggest that there is no manmade global warming has changed their mind.

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 84

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 9:52:11 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Philosophy, I think we know what they'll say can be done about it. lol
And it's not 90% certain but 100% certain that it will (of course) involve U.S. Taxpayer dollars.

....probably true....but a thought occurs to me.......do you, Popeye, believe in the phenomenon of acid rain?

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 85

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 10:02:20 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Philosophy, I think we know what they'll say can be done about it. lol
And it's not 90% certain but 100% certain that it will (of course) involve U.S. Taxpayer dollars.

....probably true....but a thought occurs to me.......do you, Popeye, believe in the phenomenon of acid rain?

Philosophy, acid rain? Yes.
Now if manmade global warming were true then why are there people trying so hard to "sell" us on it?
I mean wouldn't it just stand on it's own merits?
The whole "debate" reminds me of walking by a carnival barker and having him try to seperate you from your money for "entrance" into the tent.
Sorry but anything the "U.N." gets "involved" in is of no interest to me. It's like watching a bunch of pigs rushing up to the trough to feed.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 86

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 10:31:51 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

...the reason i ask about acid rain is because the usual argument against manmade global warming is that we are somehow arrogant to suggest that we can have an effect on our environment. However acid rain is eroding stone structures slowly all over the world. It is a manmade effect on our environment. If acid rain happens then a manmade effect on global warming is entirely possible. It's just one self contained ecosystem.

As for global warming standing on its own merits, the problem there is entrneched interests agitating against the science......just as they did when acid rain was proposed. However the sphinx developing acne was too tricky to ignore.

< Message edited by philosophy -- 9/17/2007 10:33:21 AM >

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 87

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 10:41:45 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
so where is an extraordinary scientist who can?

I am extraordinary. I can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Or is your argument that no scientist can be trusted to correctly interpret the data and thus no phenomenon is actually happening?

You appear not to be able to distinguish a fact (a phenomenon) from an interpretation if I interpret your question correctly. Perhaps you should reformulate your question? If you are confused about what you are asking, then you cannot expect a pertinent answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
the relevant fact is that a scientist who works for a politician that has assiduously attempted to suggest that there is no manmade global warming has changed their mind.

This scientist has a multiple personality disorder? Never mind.

That may be convincing or of interest to lay people, to parrots and to some people that are active in the humanity studies, but it is of no interest at all to the scientifically inclined.

It has been proven that there is manmade influence on the climate. It has not been proven that global warming, if it indeed does occur, is in any significant way caused by an increase in the carbondioxide level.

< Message edited by Rule -- 9/17/2007 11:02:29 AM >

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 88

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 10:56:31 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Philosophy, I've seen acid rain effects in New England on some species of trees.
The power plants in the Midwest smokestacks pour out smoke which drifts eastward and when it rains the rain knocks all that stuff to the ground.
Regarding global warming there are also "entrenched interests" the "U.N." trying to get involved for the perceived future taxdollars that any legislation in this area would presumably generate.
This is not part of their "job-description" and not an area for them to be involved in yet we see them trying to get involved by comming out with "reports" on global warming that they pay scientists to write.
You or I could do the same thing had we the funds in hopes that someone would listen to us and "fund" us in the future.
I'm sure we'll have tens of thousands of "reports" from many sources we really don't need any from that criminal organisation.
There's never a lack of "reports" or "studies" is there?
If you have a plumbing problem do you call an Electrician?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 89

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 3:56:24 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

It has been proven that there is manmade influence on the climate. It has not been proven that global warming, if it indeed does occur, is in any significant way caused by an increase in the carbondioxide level.

...disregarding the self aggrandisment and the wilful misinterpretation of what has been written.......a few points occur to me. At no point in this thread have i mentioned co2, so what relevance that has to our discussion is minimal. What i pointed out to you and what you have wilfully ignored is that acknowledgement of a human effect on climate is becoming more widespread. Where politicians have pretended it isn't happening they are being forced to acknowledge that it is. Scientists, paid by said politicans to lie for them, are noticing that their contracts are nearly over and if they want a job in the scientific community they have to stop pretending to be creationists or similar.
There exists only one real argument......what, if anything, can we do about it.

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 90

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 4:47:31 PM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
It has been proven that there is manmade influence on the climate. It has not been proven that global warming, if it indeed does occur, is in any significant way caused by an increase in the carbondioxide level.

At no point in this thread have i mentioned co2, so what relevance that has to our discussion is minimal.

You referred us to a newspaper article without scientific value as your argument. I quote from some of the very first lines of that article:
"Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame. The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said".
You cannot have the cactus without its thorns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
What i pointed out to you and what you have wilfully ignored is that acknowledgement of a human effect on climate is becoming more widespread.

That acknowledgement is becoming more widespread? So what? Science is not a democracy. We do not vote about the value of cosmological constants. The scientifically inclined are not swayed by the opinions of random people, that most certainly thereby disqualify themselves as scientists. You may sway me with a credible argument - and I am not picky at all and do not require formulae and calculus. I have yet to see such a credible argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Where politicians have pretended it isn't happening they are being forced to acknowledge that it is. Scientists, paid by said politicans to lie for them, are noticing that their contracts are nearly over and if they want a job in the scientific community they have to stop pretending to be creationists or similar.

I gather that you think that a salesman that previously sold you a cat in a bag and for that reason cannot be trusted, suddenly can be trusted when he sells you something else in a bag? I suppose that may make sense to some people - but not to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
There exists only one real argument......what, if anything, can we do about it.

I refer you to my post 73 in this thread. To make it easy I will quote directly from that post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
There is only one way to restore natural balances at least partially: by reduction of the human population by birth control. Women should not have children before the age of 25. Exponentially increasing taxes should be put on second and further children.

(in reply to philosophy)

Profile

Post #: 91

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 5:17:13 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Women should not have children before the age of 25. Exponentially increasing taxes should be put on second and further children.

........and if you want to be taken seriously as a supergenius wouldn't you want to take into account the optimum age for women to give birth at? Or do you have an illogical desire for birth defects?

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 92

RE: No consensus on global warming - 9/17/2007 5:57:06 PM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
wouldn't you want to take into account the optimum age for women to give birth at? Or do you have an illogical desire for birth defects?

I suppose that you refer to Down Syndrome? The risk of that at age 25 is as low as at age 20, and only later rises and doubles at age thirty. That is an acceptable interval to have one or infrequently as much as two children. In fact by implementing birth control, the absolute number of people born with defects will be much lower than without birth control, as that absolute number is a function of the number of people that are born.

I will illustrate this with a hypothetical example:
Let us assume that for every ten thousand people that are born three hundred people have major birth defects. (wikipedia: 3 %)
Then if only 2500 people are born, only 75 people with birth defects will be born (instead of three hundred). So you see: if the reduction of birth defects was your criterium for a supergenius - it isn't mine - according to you I am a supergenius. Q.E.D.