Jump to content


Photo

Parker's home town... frozen.


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Procyon

Procyon

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 725 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 19 January 2014 - 05:42 PM

I keep hearing people claim that "95% of climate scientists say that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact.  The science is settled.  You deniers don't believe in science". 

 

This strikes me as ironic - it proves to me these people have no idea what science is.  The scientific method provides for constant theoretical modifications based on observed data.  If you are not skeptical, you are not a scientist in my book.  Nothing is ever settled. Not only am I skeptical about man-made global warming, I question whether the Johnny-come-lately science of "Climate Studies" is a science at all. 



Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar.  And doesn't.

 

 

Regards,
Allan


#22 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 19 January 2014 - 07:13 PM

97%....

 

 

Or in this case, 77 of 10,000 or in fact  about  0.77% of those asked in a rather ironically non-scientific poll

 

http://wattsupwithth...ists-consensus/

 

What did Churchill say?  "There are lies, damned lies and... statistics"

 

regards

 

d


David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#23 Procyon

Procyon

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 725 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 19 January 2014 - 07:27 PM

I am one of the 31,000 scientists who signed the Petition Project affirming that there is no convincing evidence for man-made global warming.  That was several years ago.  There is even less evidence now, since global temperatures have flat lined, and much of the data was proven to be cherry-picked to fit the climate changers theories.



Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar.  And doesn't.

 

 

Regards,
Allan


#24 Jerry Adair

Jerry Adair

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • LocationShorewood

Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:17 PM

This will be my only comment and statement.  Al Gore is an idiot!  But, that doesn't make global warming any less a fact.  Read Scientific American a well respected and thoroughly researched journal.  Additionally if the off the wall ultra right wingers don't believe, then it must be true.  FYI I campaigned door to door for Barry Goldwater a true conservative

Jerry



#25 Procyon

Procyon

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 725 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 19 January 2014 - 08:35 PM

Not trying to get into an argument here, either.  The  climate is always changing.  I think there is evidence that it has gotten warmer in the last 100 years, but the cause is open to question. It may be due to man's carbon dioxide emissions, but the evidence is not clear-cut.  Since CO2 is demonstrably a green-house gas, one would expect an increase to have some effect on temperature.  I suspect, but it's just my guess, that some of the temperature increase is due to CO2 from mankind, but not all of it.  There are many variables that we seem to be missing.  This is why none of the climate models predict the observed temperature change accurately.  In any case, I have not seen any convincing proof, in a scientific sense, of anthropogenic global warming as the major reason for climate change.

 

Now, I'll shut up.  :)



Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar.  And doesn't.

 

 

Regards,
Allan


#26 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 19 January 2014 - 10:48 PM

Humanity will double in thirty years, doubling (at least) "global warming" all else equal. Chindia (> 2 billion peeps) is trying to move from 3rd to 1st world, mud huts to mansions, worn bikes to Mercedes sedans, suggesting that a third of the world, besides doubling in population will actually grow per capita "warming".  So, again, making Algore a Billionaire and (probably not) cutting emissions from the USA's 300-million people will do what again?

 

Anyone care to identify the *only* solution to "dangerous anthropogenic global warming"? ;)

 

-d


David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#27 Jerry Adair

Jerry Adair

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • LocationShorewood

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:48 AM

David

You and I had this discussion over a meal in some forgotten city.....Washington maybe and we even agreed.  

Rev Thomas Malthus, unchecked growth is exponential and the food supply is arithmetical and would result in a catastrophe unless the growth was checked e.g. war, famine etc.  I guess he forgot one pollution. It has been years since I studied Rev Thomas so my recollection may be a bit skewed but I think I'm close to a short definition.  I am sure many other on this site are significantly more learned than I and will pop up with an even more precise answer.  But to me The Malthusian Theory.  It is not the solution, but rather a definition.  Methinks the children no longer study his thoughts.  Much like Atlas Shrugged and 1984.  Books we had to read and garnered much information .

Jerry



#28 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 20 January 2014 - 03:20 AM

Bonus point to Jerry for his answer :)

 

-d


David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#29 Parker51

Parker51

    greenhorn

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 20 January 2014 - 03:29 AM

Global warming, maybe yes, maybe no, in regard to human made, but likely occurring, which it does periodically, and so, let's ignore the possible causes at this point and focus instead on the effects of Global warming. The people who got the idea that building on sand dunes next to the seashore was a good idea are learning the futility of doing so, and we are all being asked to help them. I for one can not afford to build a Summer home, and it annoys me to no end that I am being asked to help care about Luxury recreational structures falling into the ocean. I also remember that it used to be a bad joke about buying swamp land in Florida, and now we are supposed to be surprised and concerned that land which really was not land is disappearing and turning back into the wetlands it formerly was. And please do not get me started about people building in the flood plains of rivers, and their deltas. It never was permanent land. I was taught that the ancient Egyptians knew this about the Nile, and created a branch of Mathematics to enable them to delineate and reassign ownership rights to land which regularly flooded along the Nile and which thus conventional markings would not work as they washed away. The problem is the rich people who want pretty views and like living close to water, who will not take responsibility for spending large sums on buildings on "private land" which isn't permanent land and want everyone else to drop what they are doing and reorganize the planet to enable them to keep their vacation homes by stopping and reversing global warming irrespective of its cause.

#30 Saleem ali

Saleem ali

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 20 January 2014 - 04:48 PM

There is clearly a difference between science and "scientific". Manipulating some scientific data , albeit incomplete and requiring further elaborate studies ,and to frame your opinion ,and make it  everyone believe thru sheer propaganda , is not clearly science .Scientific facts after confirmation thru repeated studies , become "laws.I accept that man has caused serious damage  to worlds  ecology , but nature is self-correcting as well. And what  proponents of" global warming " has done so far in terms of helping the mankind ?



#31 Jerry Adair

Jerry Adair

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • LocationShorewood

Posted 20 January 2014 - 05:17 PM

Nope, I promised myself I would not comment anymore

Jerry



#32 Mike Hosea

Mike Hosea

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 135 posts

Posted 20 January 2014 - 05:41 PM



but nature is self-correcting as well

 

As an amateur astronomer, I take a universal view of "nature".  For the geological moment, this planet suits our needs.  It has not always been so, and it will not always be so.  Nature is a context, not a friend or enemy, and that context works out sometimes for what we might call "good".  Sometimes it works out to our destruction.  A species decimating pandemic could be natural enough.  If we fast forward millions of years, we will surely need to fend off comet/asteroid strikes that nature sends our way.  It will not be so hectic as in the movies, and the corrections needed are likely to be quite boring to watch.  Finally, of course, the sun itself will destroy all life on this planet.  I think the affinity we have for "nature" is simply that the ecological balance that nature finds of over hundreds of thousands of years tends to be more stable than what we get when we change things rapidly with limited foresight of how things will play out.  

 

Nevertheless, if "nature" wants to lead us into another ice age, I would humbly suggest that we decline, if possible.  Perhaps we should simply develop some technology to "throttle" solar radiation through modification of the net albedo of the planet.  The scale of the problem is daunting, of course.


Edited by mhosea, 21 January 2014 - 02:30 AM.


#33 Greg Minuskin

Greg Minuskin

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 898 posts
  • LocationTustin, California USA

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:55 AM

Amazing photos David! 

 

Greg Minuskin

greg@gregminuskin.com

www.gregminuskin.com



#34 Saleem ali

Saleem ali

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:58 PM

kindly forgive me for some error during posting my comment (because of my browser settings), my correct post follws


Edited by Saleem ali, 24 January 2014 - 04:34 PM.


#35 Saleem ali

Saleem ali

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 04:28 PM

 

 I think the affinity we have for "nature" is simply that the ecological balance that nature finds of over hundreds of thousands of years tends to be more stable than what we get when we change things rapidly with limited foresight of how things will play out.  

 

 

  In part , you agree with me that the Nature helps us , but the changes are very slow to observe, as  this planet or universe history spans over millions of years . what can be said of what we see in our limited life-time or observe ? This is not basically a science forum , somehow the topic started .  I have obseved one thing very clearly consistent about hollywood movies , which always feature that some disaster from the sky or from inside the earth is likely to evolve , or some alien creatures from remote planets are going to take our earth by storm, ! this reflects a very bad attitude , because real  scientists have analysed and  judged the sequences shown  far real from existing or  possible anywhere .( National Geographic and Discovery channels show geniune analyses. ) . I must conclude that we should strive hard to help the Nature , but in a very right and organised way to involve everyone from everywhere, not few biased people , and to settle down controversies rather than to evoke them , and with pure spirit ,    of course IMHOP






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users