Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Settled Science


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Settled Science Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Settled Science - 1/31/2012 5:13:46 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I think the notion offered by some Republicans on here that this is left wing propaganda is not only bullshit, but potentially dangerous bullshit.

Which would make this topic different from reality in general how?

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Settled Science - 1/31/2012 7:53:56 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

The Mail is an interesting publication isn't it?

Do any of our Brit friends know what their rep and leanings are?



HW, the Mail is a ludicrous newspaper. It's so nuttily right wing that no-one here takes it seriously.

Honestly, a message to all non-Brits: Please do *not* quote the Mail on any subject whatsoever - but most especially on anything scientific.

Yeesh: How many times have Brits here warned about this paper?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Settled Science - 1/31/2012 8:13:31 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Well, to me, the math is pretty easy to grasp. 9.1 billion metric tons per year into the atmosphere minus 5 billion metric tons per year absorbed naturally equals 4.1 billion metric tons remaining in the atmosphere.

I think sometimes, there's this tendency to ignore problems where the consequences won't be visited upon us in our own lifetimes.



I fully agree.

I think the notion offered by some Republicans on here that this is left wing propaganda is not only bullshit, but potentially dangerous bullshit.


Yes. I agree.

I'm aware of two possible motives offered by the anti-climate change crowd for the scientific consensus on climate change:
*it's a leftist conspiracy to re-distribute wealth; and
*it's a conspiracy by scientists to get research funding.

To me they are both such ridiculous claptrap they defy belief. They are the Achilles heel of the anti-climate change to people like me who don't claim to be on top of the masses of data relevant to climate change. If people on that side of the debate wish to be taken seriously by people like me, they need to do an awful lot better than this dangerous nonsense.

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 1/31/2012 8:14:24 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 8:00:17 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Well, to me, the math is pretty easy to grasp. 9.1 billion metric tons per year into the atmosphere minus 5 billion metric tons per year absorbed naturally equals 4.1 billion metric tons remaining in the atmosphere.

I think sometimes, there's this tendency to ignore problems where the consequences won't be visited upon us in our own lifetimes.



I fully agree.

I think the notion offered by some Republicans on here that this is left wing propaganda is not only bullshit, but potentially dangerous bullshit.


Well, the drawings and the article came from National Geographic, which I would consider more scientific than political. I think that we can at least agree on what is going on, but the question is, how do we deal with it? That's when it becomes more of a political matter.

Fact is, I don't think very many people are going to want to change their habits, and as nations like China and India become more industrialized (with an expected growing middle class who will also want gas-guzzling automobiles and other perks of capitalism), then it seems the problem will get worse before it gets any better.

Republicans often seem to be very myopic in a lot of ways. They were that way during the 1980s, when we hit record budget deficits and increased the national debt to the point that we're at now. The 1970s energy crisis should have been a wake-up call to Americans, and it seemed like we were heading in the right direction by switching to more economical vehicles and pushing alternative forms of energy (solar, wind, etc.). But once Reagan got into office, he put everyone back to sleep again. "Don't worry, be happy" was the mantra of the 1980s, and look where it's gotten us.

Leftists don't have much room to talk either, since the Communist Bloc countries were pretty atrocious when it came to environmental policy. Novaya Zemlya was a testing site and now a dumping ground for waste, and Wrangel Island was supposedly a "nature preserve" once upon a time.

A fine habitat for polar bears:


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 8:32:54 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline 		Here is the rebuttal to the op-ed piece in the WSJ. 

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

Here is just a bit of their response to the deniers

"You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science."

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 9:06:30 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.


A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers!

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 9:14:49 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

Here is the rebuttal to the op-ed piece in the WSJ. 

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

Here is just a bit of their response to the deniers

"You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science."



An appeal to Authority. Not respectable science. Ptolomeus developed a paradigm to assure the Holy Fathers that the earth was at the center and the sun/planets revolved about man's treasured home. And the Denier Galileo got into some deep shit with Authority. Experts, experts, experts . . . . are often wrong. But extreme views are not tolerated. Get back in step, dammit!

(in reply to housesub4you)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 11:27:51 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.


A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers!

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 1:22:38 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:


The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.


Video: Temperature Data 1880 to 2011

Source: Further information from NASA.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Settled Science - 2/1/2012 1:46:21 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
An appeal to Authority. Not respectable science. Ptolomeus developed a paradigm to assure the Holy Fathers that the earth was at the center and the sun/planets revolved about man's treasured home. And the Denier Galileo got into some deep shit with Authority. Experts, experts, experts . . . . are often wrong. But extreme views are not tolerated. Get back in step, dammit!


What we have with the climate deniers, though, is some other kind of appeal; that is, the 'appeal to the maverick'. The tiny number of scientists who are deniers are recast. They're no longer cuckoo-clocks with ludicrous ideas, they're 'lone geniuses' who 'walk their own path', white Stetsons to go with their white lab coats. The rootin', tootin' John Waynes of the scientific world.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Settled Science - 2/2/2012 5:41:06 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.


A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers!

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.


How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Settled Science - 2/2/2012 7:47:29 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.


A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers!

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.


How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

Because there is no other factor that has changed. Global tilt, orbital distance and variability, solar irradiance etc. are all stable or following stable long term cycles.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Settled Science - 2/2/2012 8:22:39 AM   
Trismagistus


Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2010
Status: offline 		pssssssst look up "toba event."

_____________________________

http://grooveshark.com/s/Pledge+Of+Allegiance/3EXY2u?src=5

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Settled Science - 2/2/2012 10:32:28 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Trismagistus

pssssssst look up "toba event."

What does a volcanic eruption whose effects disappated at least 68,000 years ago have to do with the present warming?

(in reply to Trismagistus)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Settled Science - 2/2/2012 11:01:56 AM   
Trismagistus


Posts: 137
Joined: 10/16/2010
Status: offline 		absolutely nothing, other than the fact that we haven't exactly seen a lot of evidence that it doesn't take something massive to actually kick start an ice age.

_____________________________

http://grooveshark.com/s/Pledge+Of+Allegiance/3EXY2u?src=5

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Settled Science - 2/3/2012 6:01:55 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.


A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers!

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.


How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

Because there is no other factor that has changed. Global tilt, orbital distance and variability, solar irradiance etc. are all stable or following stable long term cycles.


Is there replicable experimental evidence to support the cause and effect? Or just observation? I have provided observation of apparent anomoly that suggests there is no cause and effect: i.e. glaciation while high levels of CO2 remained. So, what we have here is theory and anomoly that disputes the theoretical construct. Seriously, Ken, science is not democratic. It is not done by a vote in a political institution. "Settled science" is not a scientific statement. It is a political statement. Good science welcomes divergent views and does not condemn the sceptics personally. Neils Bohr debated vigorously for years against Albert Einstein's scepticism over quantum mechanics. Although Bohr won out and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM became dominant, there arose two alternative interpretations [hidden variables and multiverse] through which some physicists view the same events. However, while debate goes on, one group does not try to silence the other or denigrate them personally. When science fails to tolerate opposing views it fails to be science; it becomes politics. In this case the proposed political remedies, the Kyoto Protocol, could imho lead to disaster for the world's growing population. So, again in answer to tweke's comments: we do not need to question motives in order to be sceptical of the science of the AGW theory.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Settled Science - 2/3/2012 7:29:37 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Leftists don't have much room to talk either, since the Communist Bloc countries were pretty atrocious when it came to environmental policy.


I don't think it's valid to blame liberals and socialists for the actions of a communist dictatorship.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Settled Science - 2/3/2012 7:33:04 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Leftists don't have much room to talk either, since the Communist Bloc countries were pretty atrocious when it came to environmental policy.


I don't think it's valid to blame liberals and socialists for the actions of a communist dictatorship.


I think you should add Western conservatives to that too. Communist dictatorships embodied the worst of both sides. A caricature of the economic policies pushed by liberals along with an ultra-extreme version of the Conservative's authoritarianism.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Settled Science - 2/3/2012 7:47:02 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

Because there is no other factor that has changed. Global tilt, orbital distance and variability, solar irradiance etc. are all stable or following stable long term cycles.

Excuse me? There most certainly is a factor that has changed. The Earth is warming. THAT causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. We have no data showing that anthropogenic CO2 would not have been sinked had the Earth NOT been warming.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Settled Science - 2/3/2012 9:15:32 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

Because there is no other factor that has changed. Global tilt, orbital distance and variability, solar irradiance etc. are all stable or following stable long term cycles.

Excuse me? There most certainly is a factor that has changed. The Earth is warming. THAT causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. We have no data showing that anthropogenic CO2 would not have been sinked had the Earth NOT been warming.

K.

bullshit.

The increase in CO2 predates the warming.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998IJCli..18..355R

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Settled Science Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094