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.
So, we all agree that global warming is (or at least, had been) occuring???
Yet the evidence that it is man-made is inconsistent????
and
If it is man-made, then we can do something about it????
and
If it is not man-made, then we can do nothing about it????
(seems to me (opinion) that it is quite arrogant of us, as a species, to beleive that in such a short period of time, we can have an effect so large. of course, humans can be cited for arrogance on a lot of subjects--for example the medieval church's claim that the Earth is the center of the universe.)
If it is man-made, then try to prove it instead of using hocus-pocus science....
If it is not man-made, then we adapt and evolve...
I like "hocus-pocus". It is an excellent use of words. I'm going to try to work it into casual conversation a couple of times today.
I agree with you..."try to prove it." Only with one exception. I hate the idea of our scarce resouces (mental, emotional etc) being spent when there are so many other problems around that we REALLY can do something about.
So, we all agree that global warming is (or at least, had been) occuring???
That there is regional warming sure, but as to the extent and relevance, the science is all over the place on that issue with poorly kept station monitoring combined with clever mathematical applications to "smooth" out those inconsistencies. We don't know how much, how consistent, what is the main cause, if it is "bad", "normal", or even "good". So far, all science can do is plug in partial variables into fancy prediction machines and have it read the planets palm. Even then, they keep having to "revamp" the fancy predicting machine because it keeps missing the mark when it is compared to observed data (which by the way we are starting to build a more accurate observation of these issues with satellite data which is very detailed, much more accurate than other means and for some reason is at odds with all of our other methods. In some cases, they throw out the satellite data and use the older methods because they at least support their "claims". It is mind boggling that they even attempt to call these claims "science".
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
Yet the evidence that it is man-made is inconsistent????
No, the amount to which man contributes is very very small. Those who are attempting to draw correlations have been found to be spiking the punch so to speak. Hansen fixing the temperature record, Mann pulling rabbits out of his proxies, and clever statistical blundering to fit a bias. In fact, there is more evidence to suggest we have little to no effect than there is to suggest that we do. If you delve into the "science" of it, you will see tons of research all claiming to support AGW, but most of them relying on data from only a couple sources, data that has already been brought into question and is highly suspect of bias. There is the old saying "garbage in, garbage out" and a lot of this research is using poor data to makes it claims. It is an incestuos relationship of research that proper peer review and scientific proceedure should help to reduce, yet it has not because proper due diligence is not being applied while extreme politics within the field is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
and
If it is man-made, then we can do something about it????
and
If it is not man-made, then we can do nothing about it????
Usually the process first attempts to understand what things are before decisions on those things are made. Otherwise, you end up wasting a lot of time and money applying fixes to things that may not be broken or may actually make things worse. We don't need to "save the planet", we don't need marches on washingon, legislative actions and committies, we need to back the hell out and let science do its work, not by dangling research money to the highest bidder who will neatly package a conclusion that can be applied to obtain power and levergae in washington.
Everyone loves the IPCC, but it is a not a scientific organization, it is a politically motivated administration that uses science to achieve its political goals. If you have read their summaries, review comments, and anything on the IPCC outside of their slogan and commericials, you would understand they are far from some bi-partisan committy merely looking to further our understanding of climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
(seems to me (opinion) that it is quite arrogant of us, as a species, to beleive that in such a short period of time, we can have an effect so large. of course, humans can be cited for arrogance on a lot of subjects--for example the medieval church's claim that the Earth is the center of the universe.)
It certainly is arrogant of us. I won't claim that we couldn't, nor will I claim that we can. All I can do or rather science, is measure the results and honestly follow where the data takes us. Problem is, they are first deciding where they want the data to go and then picking out all the peices that fit that direction. It is a major problem for "some" areas and researchers in the field right now (mainly those seeking political and media attention) and they are milking a cow for money for "continued" research while the politicians are using the claims as license to restrict freedoms, increase taxes, and subvert the authority of the individuals they represent. Politics as usual.
If it is man-made, then try to prove it instead of using hocus-pocus science....
If it is not man-made, then we adapt and evolve...
That would require actually applying scientific principals. Since Political Science is the new Science, proving anything is irrelevant. It isn't the search for truth, but the search for enough suckers to empty their pockets on your behalf.
I for one am not going to worry about global warming any more than I worried about peak oil in 1982, Y2K, AIDS affecting everybody, Ebola, or the supposed demise of the American economy. Rather than worrying about those things I am going to try to make the most expedicious decisions I can based on economics and my personal goals for the future. (Some of my personal goals is for a better community in which I live--just because the goals are personal doesn't mean that they are all greedy--but some are.
Ahh, so this is the disconnect.
Some of you equate science with magic.
That's exactly what it is, the same battle that Galileo had to fight. On the one hand you have the Aristotelian thinkers saying "I think for myself," and "I use common sense" who think whatever seems intuitively to be true must be correct. If they stick their nose outside their door and its cold, that does it; we're in for an ice age. Then you have the adherents to the scientific method who say forget what you think must be correct, investigate and go with the results. Who would have predicted that a return to the Dark Ages would be among the opening events of the 21st Century?
Last edited by fatchance2005; 02-02-2009 at 08:26 AM..
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.
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.
