Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdnativeson
ParticipantGlobal Warming? thats soooo yesterday, theres a new fear factor, jump on the bandwagon! This is right up all the local physicists alleys.
ParticipantYou bring up a good point, that statement was poorly worded and constructed. Still, not entirely inaccurate. There is little valid, objective science that supports the leap from theory to fact the claim of Global Warming being caused by man. Kewp’s mention of quantum chromodynamics and his subsequent response shows the naivete of many opinions.
Observing models and simulations are only effective to a point, as ultimately one cannot be 100% positive as to the validity of the criteria they are based upon. (We won’t go into the weakest leak which is the expectations, goals, motivation of the researcher themselves) Especially on a subject that is under constant change at so many levels (both known and unknown) as the earth is – meaning there is no fixed or final state or a constant. So, to be generously fair they have a 50% probability of being accurate. Do we need to address the physical “observation” statements? There is no fully “global observation” taking place it’s just not possible from a physical or technical approach.
Thats just scratching the surface, but it should give an objective mind pause as to the voracity of a statement claiming GW as a “fact”. If I were to just accept the claims of the GW proponets then I have to assume that they can accurately predict the weather for any given location in April, that should be easy as they are predicting the earths entire climate (which is inaccurate as there is not just “one” climate but hopefully the point is seen).
As I mentioned earlier who is to say that (if it came to pass) it’s necessarly a “bad thing” ultimately? Bad for who, what and how exactly? Will everyone and everything suffer? (Hey, maybe it’s the best for the earth.) If that question can be answered it’s certainly won’t be by any being that walks on this earth, it also raises a question of validity of some other theories that the more secular on this site hold so dear.
I’ll admit what I know with certainty about this issue, and that is I don’t know with certainty. No one does, they can’t unless they are the one who created the earth. Each of us needs to do the things in our power to curb pollution, a good place to start would be to seriously address the issue of poverty in the world.
One last thing, is that fear is both a big business and political tool and it’s being used against us very skillfully, and I certainly have no faith in most media sources, government or organization such as the UN to “do the right thing” if anyone even really knows what that is.
Participantreally? this is your field csr? I don’t know what to say about that, I’ll be benevolent and assume your cherry picking your points of fact is due to the need of brevity.
I find this statement very telling;
“The other issues with climate change and sea level are 1) if you warm the ocean it expands. This directly impacts coastal regions; 2) If temps in the atlantic warm or cause large amounts of freshwater to enter areas of the Labrador sea, or the areas southeast of Greenland, deep convection could slow or stop, affecting the gulf stream (There are at least two events within recorded history where his has happened). The direct impact of this scenario is the huge cooling of western europe. That will be a major economic factor.”So, it’s happened in the past? Where both of these events in the Industrial Revolution age? No. They weren’t. The earth is a living organism that we co-exist with, the fact is, it’s going to warm and cool regardless of our presence.
Is CO2 the only “culprit”?Secondly, can anyone say without doubt that the alledged current “Global Warming” trend is going to be especially harmful? When will we feel the full brunt of the catastrophe? 100 years? 400 years? 1000 years? 5000 years? Harmful how? Consider that what might be harmful to coastal dwelling humans might be in the best interest of the earth itself.
If those who are jumping on this craze look at the history of the earth they should see no human can change the earths life cycle, we can’t even predict the weather more than a week in advance and still, not very accurately. We can keep the earth cleaner, yes, but that is a different argument. Any human who believes that they can control any type of global environmental event is…. mad.
I will say that if they can get a portion of the population to buy into it, they will be very wealthy and have enormous political power. I will also say I don’t see a remarkable track record of successes for the environmental groups.
Kewp, was it you who brought up quantum chromodynamics? For a simple person (me), will you explain how that impacts global warming?
ParticipantFutureSDGuy, is this what you are referring to?
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htmParticipantThe critics have ET. If you haven’t seen their data then you are looking in the wrong places. At least you started out acknowleding it as a theory (mostly) until your last sentence.
I disagree with your statement of “the cost of making significant changes are not that great that it will cause us any hardship” If we just started with now what is the “minimum” effort which is signing Kyoto which will cost conservately tens of billions of dollars in the very least and offers miniscule benefits that you will not see in your lifetime.
In the meantime the ramifications of implementing these “protocols” and intiatives reaches far beyond us in So.Cal discussing when the housing market drops enough that we can buy a nice house for only(!) 250,000.00. The majority of the world couldn’t comprehend our “reality”. My point? If someone is subsisting on a couple of dollars a day and is starving, do you think they are concerned about global warming?
Environmentalism is big business, the same as oil and if you look both carefully and objectively you can see their message is flawed – by the premise that they can manage or preserve nature (life) itself. Question their message and claims! Go travel in a third world country, get off the manicured beach or the trendy little tourist enclaves and see how much good the environmental lobby did by blackmailing governments to stop using ddt.
So much to say and write about this but space and time will not allow it. All I can say is do your homework and look at both sides, and when you’re done look at it from a perspective other than environmental and repeat the process. I hope some here will do that, it’s sad to see intelligent people behave like sheep.
ParticipantLOL, a fact that I am fully cognizant of.
ParticipantI’m still not following your logic RB. Are you saying that once I pass the GED I’ll be your intellectual peer?
ParticipantSorry, can’t edit my post,
ranger bob, “peer reviewed science by our most accomplished scientists… OK, yes I must be the dumb one with the aggenda”
I would be careful about a statement like that, at least you did qualify it.
ParticipantAl Gore – it works both ways RB and, my “politics” aren’t involved. Regardless, his credentials are likely more impeccable than your own or Al’s. Still, my intent was for those who aren’t lost in their opinions to look into the sources he uses, which are a good introduction. As I said it’s easy listening, therefore meant for the superficially influenced.
gold_dredger, well said.
ParticipantLOL, go away for a little time and the chickenlittles proliferate.
It never ceases to surprise me how intelligent people can be so under-informed. My time in country is brief, so I’ll provide a single link for those here whose sources appear to be either those promting hype (“hollywood” science) or others with an political agenda. Therefore, they might be able to appreciate it (the link) as it’s “easy listening”.That is, if they are not blinded by prejudice.
For some it will be hard, but don’t bother insulting my (and indirectly your own) intelligence by spewing out “Denialist” labels. I am not, and have not ever said that pollution of our environment is not a serious concern, I disagree it’s a cause of a natural climate phenonemon that people are trying to associate it with.
So heres goes, a different “mtv generation” source;
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
To those who try to exercise an open mind consider this:
“Thus, the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.”
Participantsdrebear, well lets see, K. Starr was appointed to investigate the Clintons role in Whitewater which pretty much proved nothing illegal, during that course of events the Lewinski issue popped up. I don’t have total recall but I think in part it was due to P. Jones filing a criminal suit against BC. and, that lewinski could be called to testify. I could be wrong as I said I’m not exact on the course of events.
Anyway, despite the fact that K. Starr felt it was necessary to go graphic about BC’s sexual pecadillos the underlying premise for that course of events was true. BC lied in front of a federal grand jury. Still, was it worth 40 million? I go back and forth on that point.
Now, for the most part, sure, politics was a cause. I qualify that because I can’t say (no one can say) that if BC never went into politics that Whitewater and thus the Clintons involvement would never have been investigated. I believe that started at the state level not at the federal, but again I could be wrong. There you go, a brief response.
I am aware of my prejudices/bias and I consciously make an effort to see and acknowledge their presence in any situation they might arise. It’s important for me to do so, as I can then make every possible effort to negate them. In the times I can’t, I admit to their presence. I do so/try so because if I cannot do that, it then calls into question the validity of any opinion I express, any action I might take. do I have a 100% success rate? Sadly, no.
Also, I am fully cognizant that being aware of my shadows doesn’t necessarily add any validity to my opinions. I have to be able to provide supporting data. But, I also rarely if ever, am discussing things in the terms of right and wrong here (meaning I am right, therefore you are wrong).
For the most part, I start in when I see blatantly biased and usually unfounded rhetoric and/or statements being thrown around. IMO if you can’t look into and at both sides of an issue/problem/event etc. then your conclusions are bound to be inaccurate – and deserve to be both questioned and challenged.
Diego’s comments about impeachment and Bush have no basis other than his dislike of Bush and his (Bush’s) policies
I don’t see many people here acknowledging their political prejudices do you?
no, I am not bgates, he is far better looking, intelligent,
eloquent, sophisticated and wealthy than I.Participantdz, you think we live in a democracy? Seriously? We don’t, the U.S. is a republic, well, the intent is/was to be a republic. Big difference.
I am inclined to agree though with your last paragraph.
ParticipantAs you base your logic on false premises it is indeed fallacious. Regardless, blathering on about Nixon
isn’t pertinent to the issue you address, give it a rest. So, The Plame Affair is the cause of 100,00 Iraqi deaths? And, a whole generation coming of age with a profound hate? Read the links on my earlier post, or don’t, it won’t matter in your mind.The Libby investigation will do what? Nothing, the man who ADMITTED to leaking Plames “identity” hasn’t been indicted. If you can’t see the blatant partisian action on Fitzgeralds part…. well exercise your brain by investigating sources you don’t like or want to go to.
The true measurable fact is that you are lost in your prejudices, period.
ParticipantDM, the biggest difference would be that Bush broke no laws.
If he had, the proceedings would have started, the Dems would be or would’ve been all over it. Why would they wait? For the good of the nation? LOL.Consider a reason (one reason) behind the huge increase in MSM reporting lambasting everything Bush and when that falls short, everything they would like to blame on him. Again, the media knows no laws were broken, so do the next best thing to indicting him legally, indict him in the minds of americans, of which a significant number are under utilized.
True to their nature the Democrats are forming a group to try to find something to try Bush for (breaking another one of their election pledges), in what is complete disregard (I’m putting that mildly) for our legal system. I guess to blindly prejudiced people, that is completely justified.
So, it does change “the essence of the argument” your argument is based upon fallacious logic.
-
AuthorPosts
