Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2017, 03:47 PM
 
18,555 posts, read 7,309,234 times
Reputation: 11355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north View Post
Few if any people are questioning how scientists know exactly when the 2017 eclipse will occur at locations along its track, the width of the shadow, and the historical knowledge that lead to such calculations. They are not being blamed for the eclipse so they have no political or economic reasons to question the science. It's not layman's stuff you can pick up by listening to some talk show host yell for 15 minutes. The staff at Fox News has no idea how to create an accurate map like this, or the computers it's plotted on: https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/d...map/index.html

Anti-intellectuals (typically Republicans) cherry-pick "bad" science when it suits them, but trust it the majority of the time because they have no interest in doing the work on their own. Same deal with a rube who rolls coal on bicyclists with his diesel truck but would never have invented such an engine.

Quoting from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/c...is-a-clue.html

"If you respect and honor the scientists who did this work, then spare another moment to think about the scientists whose work is under attack today, and why."

That author is being polite to millions of selectively-ignorant people who populate this country. Of course, they'll claim that understanding climate change is vastly "different" than understanding the movement of planets, since they have little interest in understanding the scientific method.

It's also interesting that Trump is getting the worst flak of his Presidency over his Nazi apologetics, yet his denial of AGW and weakening of pollution controls will cause far more future harm. Both issues say a lot about the people who voted for him.

No "intellectual" would write what you've written. It displays a remarkable inability to think critically.

1. Eclipse-predicting scientists have had centuries of success predicting eclipses. AGW-predictors have no such track record.

2. The people promoting the AGW narrative are people with a long record of telling gargantuan lies. The messengers can't be trusted. We are right to be skeptical. Your vacuous comment is just another example of the unreliability of leftist propaganda.

3. The people who voted for Trump are far more likely to take action that might (co-incidentally) slow AGW. The most important policy for slowing AGW is stopping population growth, including the prevention if immigration to countries with low birth rates. Hillary was advocating open borders. For the sake of the planet, we should thank God she was not elected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2017, 04:54 PM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,911,941 times
Reputation: 12122
Liberals reject science that suggests that biological factors play a significant role in societal outcomes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 05:04 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,156,650 times
Reputation: 12100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
The medieval warming period was not global, nor was it warmer than today.
Yes it was.

Take out all the "adjustments" that were used to validate AGW and really cools off.

Why the science is flawed. People fund research to get the result they paid for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,511 posts, read 37,034,373 times
Reputation: 13978
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Yes it was.

Take out all the "adjustments" that were used to validate AGW and really cools off.

Why the science is flawed. People fund research to get the result they paid for.
No, it wasn't...

'Medieval Warm Period' May Not Have Been So Warm After All | Popular Science

Medieval Warm Period — OSS Foundation

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-underc...od-global.html

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...pg/image_large
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 06:47 PM
 
77,956 posts, read 60,134,595 times
Reputation: 49319
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north View Post
Few if any people are questioning how scientists know exactly when the 2017 eclipse will occur at locations along its track, the width of the shadow, and the historical knowledge that lead to such calculations. They are not being blamed for the eclipse so they have no political or economic reasons to question the science. It's not layman's stuff you can pick up by listening to some talk show host yell for 15 minutes. The staff at Fox News has no idea how to create an accurate map like this, or the computers it's plotted on: https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/d...map/index.html

Anti-intellectuals (typically Republicans) cherry-pick "bad" science when it suits them, but trust it the majority of the time because they have no interest in doing the work on their own. Same deal with a rube who rolls coal on bicyclists with his diesel truck but would never have invented such an engine.

Quoting from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/c...is-a-clue.html

"If you respect and honor the scientists who did this work, then spare another moment to think about the scientists whose work is under attack today, and why."

That author is being polite to millions of selectively-ignorant people who populate this country. Of course, they'll claim that understanding climate change is vastly "different" than understanding the movement of planets, since they have little interest in understanding the scientific method.

It's also interesting that Trump is getting the worst flak of his Presidency over his Nazi apologetics, yet his denial of AGW and weakening of pollution controls will cause far more future harm. Both issues say a lot about the people who voted for him.

https://s30.postimg.org/uc90pkhox/cl...d_argument.jpg
I actually believe in global warming but found you missed your chance to educate when you decided to instead insult to make yourself feel better.

Basically, you're trying to equate rather simple disciplines like celestial orbits (math\physics) to a much more complex dynamic.

What you're doing is equating the movement of a piece in chess as "simple" and then trying to latch it into the argument that since pieces are easy to understand then the game is just as easy.

Then you chuck in various insults and which typically make someone that is about an inch deep on the topic feel good about themselves.

You're not helping the discussion so I hope it was worth the ego boost to keep polarizing the topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 06:50 PM
 
77,956 posts, read 60,134,595 times
Reputation: 49319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
It may be 0.03C lower than the early to mid 20th Century that's the official line. However regionally Temps did match even exceed current regional temperatures. For instance the Sargasso was 1C warmer 950-1250 than currently. During the following LIA it fell to 1C cooler than currently.

Further it's kind of hard to determine overall temperatures, since the MWP is seen everywhere from trees and ice cores in New Zealand and Antarctica to mollusk shells in Iceland. Do we base annual average global temperature on anomalous highs, or lows, or an average of averages? If the Sargasso was 1C higher than currently then the implication is that for an extended period enough temperature rise existed to raise sea temperatures in that area by 50% higher than between say 1500 and now, that temperature can't have been localized, but at very least across the entire North Atlantic.

While I'm not saying we're not experiencing a climate variance, not even disputing CO2 as a contributing factor, what do you think a climate effect like the MWP that raised those sea temperatures would have based on our current atmospheric composition including the increase in CH4 and CO2, with the meteorological sensor networks we have now would be interpreted? Would we egotistically think we caused it? Or logically question it's cause? It's very easy to fall into the Post Hoc fallacy that Temps are up, CO2 is up, we burn and produce CO2 and Methane, both are GHG's so we're the cause. I'm not convinced we are the cause, that does not mean that we should belch out billions of tons of CO2 and Methane and other pollutants, indeed it's better sense to reduce them. However if we decide to, let's reduce them, let's not run political circuses that show how much the world is doing while achieving little (because world annual emissions still keep climbing) but actually reduce emissions globally, not because of a belief we're damaging the climate, but because it's the right thing to do.
$100 says the OP saw this post, got to 0.03C and stopped reading because it had like math and science and junk in it. lmao
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,989 posts, read 25,952,358 times
Reputation: 15492
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
I am a qualified second officer in unlimited tonnage licensed by the Coast Guard. I have used a sextant navigating by the stars when I was a Quartermaster in the Navy. All the celestial bodies move across the sky in predictable patterns as observed through the centuries by the Polynesians who navigated across the pacific using their eyes and the Pole Star and by Galileo and other astronomers. Various forms of sea life and cloud patterns and water salinity could determine the Polynesians position and proximity to land. So what form of knowledge about the heavens did I discredit?

AGW is not proven. So what centuries of knowledge did I discredit? Wait, there have been no centuries of knowledge regarding AGW.

You lose
What exactly qualifies a quartermaster to criticize climate scientists who have done decades of research.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 09:43 PM
 
18,555 posts, read 7,309,234 times
Reputation: 11355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
What exactly qualifies a quartermaster to criticize climate scientists who have done decades of research.
He didn't criticize them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top