RE: Questions on climate change?

RE: Questions on climate change? (Full Version)

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

Message

Rule -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 11:28:40 AM)
A polar bear was seen below a waterfall at the equator.

servantforuse -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 11:43:40 AM)
Isn't that at the San Diego zoo ? He seem to be doing quite well.

inmate822210 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 11:53:24 AM)
I think it's impossible to be conclusive about climate change with many unknown factors at this point. Do I personally think there is good evidence regarding greenhouse gas effects? Certainly. However, one theory doesn't explain everything. For one, the Earth doesn't have a static orbit (nor any other planet) like many of us think. As a planet, we're trying to go dead straight into the sun, but we can't accomplish this because of the sun's massive influence on general and special relativity. So we're spun like a corkscrew about the sun. If we don't have a constant perihelion (point of orbit nearest to the sun) or aphelion (point furthest away), it's hard to accurately assume effects of solar flares and simply being closer or further from the sun. Also, we don't know what gravity is necessarily. I mean we know the effect of the force and can measure that to some degree, but an actual graviton eludes us. That and the fact that we don't know everything about the planet's polarization (the core is largely speculative). If you combine those with the fact that the moon is slowly moving away from us (we laser point it every night if you didn't know via NASA), it's impossible to completely account for fluctuations in the Earth's electromagnetic field that shields us from solar rays and such. We know climate change happens regardless of human existence, so there is an extra burden to prove that we're actually effecting it. It's just one of those things where people will use science when it's on their side, and then try to tear it apart when it contradicts them. It's hard as a physicist to hear people conjecture on a scientific topic when true scientists realize that we can't "prove" anything 100%. Are people getting sick from air quality? Yes. Are the icecaps melting because of carbon emissions? Unknown; possibly. Isn't it more likely thermonuclear testing broke atmospheric layers than anything else? Almost certain about it! (Airbursting a 25-52.8 megaton bomb has more consequences than a very sizable asteroid hitting the earth... and we are under the impression that an asteroid caused the last ice age!). Didn't Israel and Sudan combine to do testing south of Africa and into Antarctica? They did. Can we prove any one thing is more affective than another? It's hard to say.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 12:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: inmate822210 Are people getting sick from air quality? Yes. Are the icecaps melting because of carbon emissions? Unknown; possibly. Isn't it more likely thermonuclear testing broke atmospheric layers than anything else? Almost certain about it! (Airbursting a 25-52.8 megaton bomb has more consequences than a very sizable asteroid hitting the earth... and we are under the impression that an asteroid caused the last ice age!). Didn't Israel and Sudan combine to do testing south of Africa and into Antarctica? They did. Can we prove any one thing is more affective than another? It's hard to say. This is what I have been saying for many years. Of course I don't doubt that what we do affects the planet. It must. In the grand scheme of things, we've been on this planet (and engaging in CO2 production) for a relatively short time. On the other hand; I refuse to join the crowd wearing sandwich boards and ringing bells.

Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 12:15:21 PM)
Thats pretty rich from the guy who closes his eyes and covers his ears when the evidence is right in front of his face. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm

Rule -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 1:40:09 PM)
I blame the sea urchins. It doesn't have anything to do with carbon dioxide. It were the kelp forests along the west coast of North America that caused currents of equatorial hot sea water to slow down as it moved towards the Arctic. The sea urchins used to be eaten by the sea otters. After the Americans exterminated the sea otters, the sea urchin population exploded and enormous numbers of sea urchins ate all the kelp! As a consequence the currents of equatorial hot sea water moved towards the Arctic much faster and started to melt the polar ice. That is how the climate started to change! [;)]

Tkman117 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 2:05:47 PM)
Not to mention those urchins with their pointy spikes keep hurting people! And people keep thinking it's the damn sharks, so they keep killing them all! Poor sharks [:D]

PeonForHer -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/30/2014 2:14:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr On the other hand; I refuse to join the crowd wearing sandwich boards and ringing bells. You're invoking the wrong image, DS. Think of the Mayor in Jaws: 'Hey, that's not a shark. That's just a blurred photo. I'm not going to stop Amity Bay's thriving business on the basis of a blurred photo'. It's a pity that there isn't an antonym of the word 'alarmist' . . . as so often, the righties have all the catchy words. 'Complacentist', maybe. I picture some terrifyingly dangerous nutcase who keeps saying, 'Nah, it'll never happen - everything will be just the same as it's always been' - till it actually happens. I shall never tire of mentioning that one-time highly-regarded British historian who wrote a splendidly researched and immaculately argued book on the theme that there'll never be another World War. Much admired man, he was. His book was published in 1936. Three years later his standing dropped a little. Guess why.

vincentML -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/31/2014 4:07:59 AM)
quote: This is all about scientific caution, basically. Unless it was abundantly clear from the papers they looked at, the researchers didn't want to assume that the relevant authors supported AGW. Scientific caution however is translated into a bludgeon against people who have reservations when reported in Media or in forums like this, Peon. Along with demeaning adjectives like 'denier' and pejorative religious and political slander people who have reservations about the pronouncements of a "settled science" are scorned as uneducated. I find the inclusion of such comments arrogant (not by you) and unsuitable to scientific discourse. The numbers in the survey still show that Half of the 62.5% remain uncertain. Furthermore, there is a large block of climatologists who failed to respond. They either could not be arsed or perhaps they had local political considerations. We cannot know, but the often heard expression "97.2% of climatologists agree with AGW" is at least misleading if fraudulent is too strong a term.

Zonie63 -> RE: Questions on climate change? (1/31/2014 4:49:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr On the other hand; I refuse to join the crowd wearing sandwich boards and ringing bells. You're invoking the wrong image, DS. Think of the Mayor in Jaws: 'Hey, that's not a shark. That's just a blurred photo. I'm not going to stop Amity Bay's thriving business on the basis of a blurred photo'. It's a pity that there isn't an antonym of the word 'alarmist' . . . as so often, the righties have all the catchy words. 'Complacentist', maybe. I picture some terrifyingly dangerous nutcase who keeps saying, 'Nah, it'll never happen - everything will be just the same as it's always been' - till it actually happens. I shall never tire of mentioning that one-time highly-regarded British historian who wrote a splendidly researched and immaculately argued book on the theme that there'll never be another World War. Much admired man, he was. His book was published in 1936. Three years later his standing dropped a little. Guess why. I've often thought of similar things which were said, such as when economists make predictions: "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929. Here's another good one: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899 "Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.714844E-02