RE: BBC: What happened to global warming?

RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The question I'd be asking, were I in your shoes right now, is why are all the people presenting anti global warming opinions so thoroughly and completely compromised? If there was really any scientific doubt on the subject you'd expect young guys looking to make their reputations to be publishing on the subject but all you get are the same small group of deniers. That would in itself tell anyone with an open mind a great deal about what is actually going on. I find myself less than convinced regarding your qualifications to address the subject of having an open mind. This article lists scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. K.

Mercnbeth -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:35:36 PM)
quote: Go read the primary sources for the scientific method. a lot of the papers are online. I've read plenty which is why I have taken the position that they are incorrect. NONE of them account for the past, while at the same time asserting they know for sure - the future. Is this your way of stipulating to that fact? With "a lot of the papers" given as the answer from someone so convinced, I'm further confirmed that there isn't ONE paper that can accurately use their current fortune telling predictions and plug them into accounting for past 'global warming occurrences.

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: why are all the people presenting anti global warming opinions so thoroughly and completely compromised? If there was really any scientific doubt on the subject you'd expect young guys looking to make their reputations to be publishing on the subject but all you get are the same small group of deniers. My "open mind" accounts for this anomaly by appreciating the economics. There's no $$$$$ on the side of "deniers"; while at the same time there is plenty of cash being handed out by the government and special interest zealots to the religion's 'saints'. Follow the money. There's no money behind the deniers? Ever heard of the American Petroleum Institute or Exxon?

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Go read the primary sources for the scientific method. a lot of the papers are online. I've read plenty which is why I have taken the position that they are incorrect. NONE of them account for the past, while at the same time asserting they know for sure - the future. Is this your way of stipulating to that fact? With "a lot of the papers" given as the answer from someone so convinced, I'm further confirmed that there isn't ONE paper that can accurately use their current fortune telling predictions and plug them into accounting for past 'global warming occurrences. None of the dendrochronology or ice core articles deal with the past? Do you know what dendrochronology and ice cores are?

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:42:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The question I'd be asking, were I in your shoes right now, is why are all the people presenting anti global warming opinions so thoroughly and completely compromised? If there was really any scientific doubt on the subject you'd expect young guys looking to make their reputations to be publishing on the subject but all you get are the same small group of deniers. That would in itself tell anyone with an open mind a great deal about what is actually going on. I find myself less than convinced regarding your qualifications to address the subject of an open mind. This article lists scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Take a careful look at that list. How many are meteorologists or climatogists or any other field that would seem to lend credence to the opinions of these people? If someone presents a list of engineers etc. that doubt evolution do you expect that all the dinosaur fossils are hoaxes?

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Take a careful look at that list. How many are meteorologists or climatogists or any other field that would seem to lend credence to the opinions of these people? I think that makes my point very nicely, thank you. K.

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 12:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Take a careful look at that list. How many are meteorologists or climatogists or any other field that would seem to lend credence to the opinions of these people? I think that makes my point very nicely, thank you. And what point was that? Did you fail to read the second paragraph of my post? I don't see a response to that very valid question.

Mercnbeth -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 1:01:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen None of the dendrochronology or ice core articles deal with the past? Do you know what dendrochronology and ice cores are? Sure do - they report they don't explain. In that manner they represent the global warming theory perfectly. The problem is that there is nothing in the current global warming religion dogma which accounts for those results; not during the assent of man or before for that matter. It appears that the global warming argument would be contrary to observable history of represented by the study of these ice cores not in support of it. Yet people should believe it? Why?

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 1:03:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what point was that? That your mind is closed on the subject. It is patently unreasonable to argue that people from other disicplines cannot possibly have anything intelligent to say or contribute. K.

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 1:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what point was that? That your mind is closed on the subject. It is patently unreasonable to argue that people from other disicplines cannot possibly have anything intelligent to say or contribute. K. It is patently unreasonable to argue that non experts opinions are more valid than the opinions of experts in the field. I don't ask my electrician why my toilet backs up I ask my plumber.

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 1:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is patently unreasonable to argue that non experts opinions are more valid than the opinions of experts in the field. You never know. Sometimes someone from another field can see something more clearly because he isn't working from the same assumptions. I seem to recall that Metallurgists used to know that tungsten was too hard and brittle to be made into filaments, until a Physicist found a way to create them thanks to an idea he got from watching his Dentist prepare amalgam for a filling. K.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 2:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Maybe it's just me... but do these arguments with Climate Change deniers (actually, Global Warming... Bush and the GOP demended the "softer" name) remind you of a famous scene from an iconic US comic book character's origins? Jor-El: You cannot deny these facts! Krypton Elder: Be warned, Jor-El, the council has already wasted enough time on this wild theory of yours... Jor-El: And I'm telling you that we must evacuate this planet immediately! Krypton will explode in a matter of months! Krypton Council Member: It's not your data that we have issue with, it's your conclusions we find unsupportable... I say Krypton is just shifting it's orbit... Jor-El: This is insanity! It's suicide! No, wait, it's worse than that! It's genocide! So, I wonder how that worked out for the "powers that be" on ol' Krypton? WOW!!! Well now I am convinced!!! We didn't LISTEN! http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103844

FatDomDaddy -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 2:50:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is patently unreasonable to argue that non experts opinions are more valid than the opinions of experts in the field. You never know. Sometimes someone from another field can see something more clearly because he isn't working from the same assumptions. I seem to recall that Metallurgists used to know that tungsten was too hard and brittle to be made into filaments, until a Physicist found a way to create them thanks to an idea he got from watching his Dentist prepare amalgam for a filling. K. Don't confuse him

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 5:14:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is patently unreasonable to argue that non experts opinions are more valid than the opinions of experts in the field. You never know. Sometimes someone from another field can see something more clearly because he isn't working from the same assumptions. I seem to recall that Metallurgists used to know that tungsten was too hard and brittle to be made into filaments, until a Physicist found a way to create them thanks to an idea he got from watching his Dentist prepare amalgam for a filling. K. Actually the amalgam method of producing tungsten filaments in lightbulbs was not the first method of producing tungsten filaments, so metallurgists did know how to do it before then. Look into the colloidal method being developed in 1904 before the 1906 development of the amalgam method. On your more general claim, yes sometimes an outside perspective may lead to a breakthrough but we're not talking about some problem that no one can figure out. What we're discussing is interpreting data that is specific to a field. I'm a mathematician and I can graph the data or manipulate it in any number of ways but I don't know enough to interpret the data. I'ts extraordinarily unlikely that someone without the appropriate training in the field can make more sense of the data than a mathematician. I'm still waiting for your response to my question: if a list of engineers and scientists in fields not related to biology that doubt evolution is presented to you, such a list is available, will you come to the conclusion that evolution is invalid?

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 8:38:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen if a list of engineers and scientists in fields not related to biology that doubt evolution is presented to you, such a list is available, will you come to the conclusion that evolution is invalid? Straw man, Ken. I have never argued that the "global warming" conclusion is definitively "invalid". quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I can graph the data or manipulate it in any number of ways but I don't know enough to interpret the data. Yes, I understand. But what you are advocating here is faith. Faith in "experts". It's not altogether a bad policy, but it's far from being always the wisest one. Unfortunately for this particular issue, the Earth's biosphere is an infinitely complicated place that is subject to myriad influences both local and distant. Climate predictions necessarily depend on the assumption that we have sufficient relevant data in our models and that nothing of consequence has been overlooked. I'm not prepared to invest much faith (nevermind money) in that one. K.

DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 9:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen if a list of engineers and scientists in fields not related to biology that doubt evolution is presented to you, such a list is available, will you come to the conclusion that evolution is invalid? Straw man, Ken. I have never argued that the "global warming" conclusion is definitively "invalid". quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I can graph the data or manipulate it in any number of ways but I don't know enough to interpret the data. Yes, I understand. But what you are advocating here is faith. Faith in "experts". It's not altogether a bad policy, but it's far from being always the wisest one. Unfortunately for this particular issue, the Earth's biosphere is an infinitely complicated place that is subject to myriad influences both local and distant. Climate predictions necessarily depend on the assumption that we have sufficient relevant data in our models and that nothing of consequence has been overlooked. I'm not prepared to invest much faith (nevermind money) in that one. You're the one that presented a list of mostly non experts in climatology who "doubt" global warming and then when I found the list unpersuasive because it contained a paucity of experts in the field combined with my knowledge that teh overwhelming majority of those working in the field do not have significant doubts that anthropogenic global warming is occuring you accused me of not having an open mind. I presented the exact same situation and you accuse me of erecting straw men? You are the one who tried to insult me and then when the absurdity of your position was pointed out compounded your error by insulting me yet again. I'm not advocating faith of any kind and your condescension has grown tiresome. Let me make this clear for at least the third time in this thread, my opinions on this matter are derived from reading the primary literature and getting as educated on the subject as my available time allows. The facts have convinced me just as they convince virtually everyone who examines them in detail.

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 9:41:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm not advocating faith of any kind and your condescension has grown tiresome. Well at least it's good to see that you are dealing with views that differ from your own much better than you used to. K.

rikigrl -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 10:11:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm not advocating faith of any kind and your condescension has grown tiresome. Well at least it's good to see that you are dealing with views that differ from your own much better than you used to. K. Unlike you who failed to recognise an opposing view to your "Ronnie Reagan ended the cold war" opinion.

Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/12/2009 10:35:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rikigrl Unlike you who failed to recognise an opposing view to your "Ronnie Reagan ended the cold war" opinion. Since some people won't know what you're talking about, I'll just paste it (from here) without comment... quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: rikigrl For my opinion of the fairy tale that Reagan ended the cold war see post 96. For an opinion on what a fairy tale your opinion is, see here: Slate, June 9, 2004 K. K.

looking4princess -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/13/2009 4:30:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex In a democracy, the people like us have to vote on policy, based on science we don't understand No one on these boards is a climatologist. No one here has taken anything more than a college level physics class. Yet important decisions must be made, policy determined, that will have drastic long term implications for the world. Currently, most people take their political ideas and biases, and hunt for favorable scientific papers to back them up, sort of becoming jailhouse lawyers of science. This is pretty mch how policy is determined in dictatorships- the powers that be determine policy, then find compliant scientists to write justifications. Stalin for example, had botanists write papers that showed that plants could be exhorted to work communally to increase crop yields. Needless to say, the plants were unimpressed. I would suggest a different approach; we look to the scientific community for a consensus, relying on peer reviewed work. It isn't perfect- sometimes the scientific community can be wrong. But they at least know what the fuck they are talking about. Ah, but here's the problem as I have understood it Animus, the so called consensus at the root of the current policy was developed by a committee of scientists overlayed by a political committee at the United Nations. Furthermore, doing science based on peer review does not imply consensus. That is a terrible mischaracterization of doing science. Science is the anthesis of consensus. Science is a flowing stream. Consensus is all too often a fixed and stagnent pool of still water. Historically, progress in science has depended heavily upon the rebel, the lone dissenter. Copernicus, Kepler, and Gallileo defied the political committees of their times as best they could. Science by committee is a nonsequiter that has its own intrinsic top down tyranny. Science sponsored and controlled by the United Nations Political Committee leaves much to be desired, I would think.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875