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.
I stand by what I said earlier, whether or not a person believes that global warming is occuring, they can still do their part (no matter how small the deed is) to at least take care of our ONE AND ONLY planet. We only have one, so why don't we at least try to take care of it? You don't have to spend money to do that.
That is avoiding the issue with these positions. You attempt to connect certainty to understanding the meaning of all things when I would just be happy with you being able to explain the inconsistencies and relevant unknowns in the research. The issues you attempt to bring up are accounted for, tested, proven to be reliable. Your methods of study have not. I get into a car, I know the risks of accidents, part failures, etc, but you know what? Ive been driving cars for a very long time and have never ran into the major issues. Can you say the same in climate research? I didn't think so.
All you use is "unknowns" to promote fear tactics to push people to agree with you. That or "its too complicated for you to understand, trust me". Heck even Einstien never took that lackluster position. He could explain very complex science in very simple ways, yet always answer for the discrepancies. Even on principals that were shown to be certain, proven, and accepted without conflict he stated as being only a truth until it could be unproven. Yet, here you are in climate research taking arrogant stances on definitives when you can't even push AGW into the field of a theory among scientific standards. Say you have and I know you are selling me a big fish story.
As I said though, we disagree. Accept that or move on. I dislike you approach to the discussion and I really don't want to bicker over "opinion" matters which is what we end up doing each time. So please, I won't respond to you anymore and you don't respond to me. No good will come of it.
there aren't any inconsistencies (or poor design decisions) in the design of your car? it's an awefully complex thing. do you really understand enough about it to use it without eliminating yourself? there aren't any unknowns in your investments or the models that go into economic decision making? but you have enough trust in those to invest your money, or to buy a house... i've been studying the climate for a long time, and like your car probably has the occasional serious glitch yet overall does pretty well (well enough to be trusted, right?), i would say that climate science has the occasional glitch (more regular annoyances that don't undermine it), but overall, i see enough to put together a trustworthy enough picture to point the way for my evidence-based suspicions concerning the global near surface climate: that it is warming, and that people likely have something to do with that. is it arrogant to tell me how poor my science is, without actually having looked closely at much of the science yourself? you HAVE been looking closely at it for just a few months, for the most part, right? (i ask as you never clearly responded to any questions concerning your background, and mentioned that you have learned enough to to say things confidence just in the past few months, basically.) is it arrogant to lambast an entire discipline (based on what evidence)? is it arrogant to say "nomander, i agree with this or that, and i respect your views, while YOU have said this or that, and this is why i believe this or that other thing. feel free to ask me what questions you want, though please try to be respectful."?
because various sciences might require different approaches, you claim that one science has no value? it seems that you are saying climate science has no value. is that true, nomander? have you done any of the research yourself, nomander? can you honestly assess the discipline if you don't have that kind of familiarity with it?
the thread stands towards ome of what's "fact", what's "opinion"; who's basing their thoughts on what.
you want complexity simplified? then i would suggest looking back at some of the thread. you want to see commentary that sounds like "we know this for sure, the rest seems to be a likelihood, with varying degrees of certainty - here's my take"...you might consider looking back at the thread, checking out some of the links provided therein.
I stand by what I said earlier, whether or not a person believes that global warming is occuring, they can still do their part (no matter how small the deed is) to at least take care of our ONE AND ONLY planet. We only have one, so why don't we at least try to take care of it? You don't have to spend money to do that.
I already do. I use only what I need. Keep in mind I am very conservative with my money and my life. Using more water = paying more money. I don't like wasting money, so I only use what I need. This is the same in everything I do. I used to go down the roads and seeing a can, I would stop by pick it up. As I said, I recycled because it has a benefit. It wasn't until the "city" took that benefit away that I stopped. Blame the the governmental organizations for screwing that up.
If thats all you are suggesting, I agree. I am with ya, but that as I said isn't the real issue here.
there aren't any inconsistencies (or poor design decisions) in the design of your car? it's an awefully complex thing. do you really understand enough about it to use it without eliminating yourself? there aren't any unknowns in your investments or the models that go into economic decision making? but you have enough trust in those to invest your money, or to buy a house... i've been studying the climate for a long time, and like your car probably has the occasional serious glitch yet overall does pretty well (well enough to be trusted, right?), i would say that climate science has the occasional glitch (more regular annoyances that don't undermine it), but overall, i see enough to put together a trustworthy enough picture to point the way for my evidence-based suspicions concerning the global near surface climate: that it is warming, and that people likely have something to do with that. is it arrogant to tell me how poor my science is, without actually having looked closely at much of the science yourself? you HAVE been looking closely at it for just a few months, for the most part, right? (i ask as you never clearly responded to any questions concerning your background, and mentioned that you have learned enough to to say things confidence just in the past few months, basically.) is it arrogant to lambast an entire discipline (based on what evidence)? is it arrogant to say "nomander, i agree with this or that, and i respect your views, while YOU have said this or that, and this is why i believe this or that other thing. feel free to ask me what questions you want, though please try to be respectful."?
because various sciences might require different approaches, you claim that one science has no value? it seems that you are saying climate science has no value. is that true, nomander? have you done any of the research yourself, nomander? can you honestly assess the discipline if you don't have that kind of familiarity with it?
the thread stands towards ome of what's "fact", what's "opinion"; who's basing their thoughts on what.
you want complexity simplified? then i would suggest looking back at some of the thread. you want to see commentary that sounds like "we know this for sure, the rest seems to be a likelihood, with varying degrees of certainty - here's my take"...you might consider looking back at the thread, checking out some of the links provided therein.
You missed my point, whether it be purposely or unintentional. I won't be responding to you Hello, nothing personal, it is just I don't think we will ever gain any ground. Best wishes!
You missed my point, whether it be purposely or unintentional. I won't be responding to you Hello, nothing personal, it is just I don't think we will ever gain any ground. Best wishes!
i missed your point? all apologies if so. i have seen your point as being (i paraphrase) "if you can't prove something with total certainty, then how do i trust it?", "you are just using scare tactics, hello-world", "you're arrogant about definitives, hello-world", "i will buy into being a better steward of the environment and climate if someone else foots the bill", "it's too costly", that "all you use are unknowns and never defend your position, hello-world", "you tell me i don't understand anything, hello-world", etc. based on previous posts of yours. so i address these interpretations of your point(s), for example. i say, little is 100% certain, and while you have some good points concerning some of the sloppiness here and there in cliamte science, you yourself imply that you have a few months worth of looking into things like climateaudit as your background (that's all you WOULD say), so how do you broadbrush the discipline as "not to be trusted" while there is at least plenty of evidence to support the stances i've mentioned in this thread, not to mention that it could save you money to be more efficient whether or not you consider that evidence of any use, right?
sorry if you meant something other than what you typed and i didn't "get that".
if you are not interested in the dialogue, sounds fair enough to me. best wishes back at you!
That is what I got (7/10).
Yeah, I found the (actual) data interesting, too.
I agree! I liked how it showed charts and had well written explanations instead of just a few sentences.
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.
