| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Earth wrote: | | Skepticism is proven the sane approach, again. |
Like the same 'scepticism' has been proven the 'sane' approach against atheism.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | | The oceans will rise three meters overnight, and mankind will never be able to adapt. |
You must be thinking about tides. Which climate scientist said this would be one of the effects of global warming?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aidanjt wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | Skepticism is proven the sane approach, again. |
Like the same 'scepticism' has been proven the 'sane' approach against atheism. |
A skeptical approach to theism is the sane approach. Agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position on theism.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Earth wrote: | | aidanjt wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | Skepticism is proven the sane approach, again. |
Like the same 'scepticism' has been proven the 'sane' approach against atheism. |
A skeptical approach to theism is the sane approach. Agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position on theism. |
I'd have to disagree. Just because a lot of people claim to believe in theism, it doesn't make it more valid than other issues of pure faith. There's a lot of issues of pure faith and superstition that are believed by millions of people. China for example has a lot of widely held superstitions. Does that mean we must be agnostic ("They might be true, we can never know") of all of those things?
e.g. It's like saying we have to be agnostic about breaking a mirror giving us 7 years bad luck just because so many people believe it.
A proper definition of atheism is someone who does not have an active belief in a deity. If you don't then you're not an agnostic, you're an atheist.
Since theism is non-falsifiable then it deserves equal treatment of anything else that is non-falsifiable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | Old School wrote: | | The oceans will rise three meters overnight, and mankind will never be able to adapt. |
You must be thinking about tides. Which climate scientist said this would be one of the effects of global warming? |
Which climate scientists said this:
| Quote: | ZOGMG we must stop teh burning of all carbon now or else mass death will ensue!!1!
-- Herr Reverend Professor-Doktor McGruff: PhD Teh Scyents; D.Theology Global McWarming |
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zixnub
n00b
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 64
Location: Brasschaat, Belgium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | Which climate scientists said this:
| Quote: | | ZOGMG we must stop teh burning of all carbon now or else mass death will ensue!!1! |
|
They all do. Business as usual will be disastrous for a very large number of species, including our own.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | It wasn't said or claimed by those with whom I agree, so it is false. |
He can change his mind all he likes but he does not represent the climate science community in this and never has. |
You needn't say it any more. It is perfectly clear that until those with whom you agree change their mind, everyone else is wrong.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | It is perfectly clear that until those with whom you agree change their mind, everyone else is wrong. |
It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe. It has everything to do with what can be proven.
All I ever do is explain the science, in the same way I might try to explain anatomy or geology or evolution. You do not understand - because you have not bothered to learn - the weight of evidence which supports climate science. You don't even seem to grasp the basic requirement that all scientific theories must be backed up by solid evidence and meet the minimum standard of peer review. Lovelock was not wrong to speculate about extreme warming - climate does not respond linearly to forcings, particularly if the forcing is large - but you are wrong to imagine that this represents a formal theory which is widely accepted by the scientific community.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can't prove enough to be useful, beyond the suggestion that "it's probably a good idea to reduce carbon output". The unfortunate truth is that we have no idea how much of the warming is due to carbon dioxide and how much is due to other factors, anthropogenic or natural. The models endorsed by the so-called "consensus" have proven thus far to be wildly inaccurate and, even as they have been "corrected" year by year, systematically pessimistic (see the graph).
The truth is that we have a very limited understanding of both the size and nature of the human contribution to the warming we are observing.
You people have nothing in common with actual climate scientists and fall into the same category as those running around claiming that people should stop vaccinating their babies now or stop using cell phones because Jebus told you so.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | The models endorsed by the so-called "consensus" have proven thus far to be wildly inaccurate and, even as they have been "corrected" year by year, systematically pessimistic (see the graph). |
Here we go again. How many of the signatories are active in the field, ie have a substantial, recent record of published work in climate science?
Ooops:
| Quote: | | You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science. Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. |
Give it up BK. This is just embarassing.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | aidanjt wrote: | | The Earth wrote: | | Skepticism is proven the sane approach, again. |
Like the same 'scepticism' has been proven the 'sane' approach against atheism. |
A skeptical approach to theism is the sane approach. Agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position on theism. |
I'd have to disagree. |
You're free to be wrong.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Just because a lot of people claim to believe in theism, it doesn't make it more valid than other issues of pure faith. |
When dealing with a complete unknowable, saying "I don't/can't know" is the most intellectually honest answer.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | A proper definition of atheism is someone who does not have an active belief in a deity. |
Atheism means, by definition, no god. It has a certainty that even dismisses the idea of a prime mover.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | If you don't then you're not an agnostic, you're an atheist. |
As I just explained above, your understanding is flawed of the words atheism and agnosticism.
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Since theism is non-falsifiable then it deserves equal treatment of anything else that is non-falsifiable. |
Like String Theory?
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
All religions are variations on the cargo cult theme. Sometimes they have impressive insights into the human condition, sometimes not, but they are all, without exception, wrong if taken at face value. It takes no great intellectual effort to realise that a radio built out of coconuts will not work.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | The models endorsed by the so-called "consensus" have proven thus far to be wildly inaccurate and, even as they have been "corrected" year by year, systematically pessimistic (see the graph). |
Here we go again. How many of the signatories are active in the field, ie have a substantial, recent record of published work in climate science?
Give it up BK. This is just embarassing. |
Red herring, ad hominem, and strawman. Nice work.
I am referring only to the graph. Are you saying that graph is a misrepresentation?
Also, other than that ad hominem, you didn't address anything I said:
| Quote: | You can't prove enough to be useful, beyond the suggestion that "it's probably a good idea to reduce carbon output". The unfortunate truth is that we have no idea how much of the warming is due to carbon dioxide and how much is due to other factors, anthropogenic or natural. The models endorsed by the so-called "consensus" have proven thus far to be wildly inaccurate and, even as they have been "corrected" year by year, systematically pessimistic (see the graph).
The truth is that we have a very limited understanding of both the size and nature of the human contribution to the warming we are observing.
You people have nothing in common with actual climate scientists and fall into the same category as those running around claiming that people should stop vaccinating their babies now or stop using cell phones because Jebus told you so. |
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | I am referring only to the graph. Are you saying that graph is a misrepresentation? |
Are bears catholic?
| BoneKracker wrote: | | we have no idea how much of the warming is due to carbon dioxide and how much is due to other factors, anthropogenic or natural |
FFS. We do know without a shadow of a doubt. What exactly are you trying to claim is the "real" cause?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe. It has everything to do with what can be proven. |
And proof is demonstrated by the number of signatories. Wow.
| mcgruff wrote: | | you are wrong to imagine that this represents a formal theory which is widely accepted by the scientific community. |
I've never said anything was a widely accepted theory. I've merely said that the theory of climate change remains unproven, except that it is happening. The degree to which it is happening and the affects remain theoretical and data (which I've posted about) along the way makes it clear that it is still theory.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | I am referring only to the graph. Are you saying that graph is a misrepresentation? |
Are bears catholic? |
All I see there is an admission that their models have indeed been inaccurate and pessimistic, but worded to have the tone of a rebuttal. For example:
| Quote: | | The line for the IPCC First Assessment Report is clearly way off, but back in 1990 the climate models didn’t include important things like ocean circulation, so that’s hardly surprising. |
Oh, yeah, "way back then, in the fucking stone age of the 1990s, before we actually had Scyents"... therefore, it's completely to be expected that we were full of shit and highly inaccurate... but now that we've discovered Scyents, you can trust us! Please. 
| Quote: | | Given that these lines are supposed to be average, long-term slopes, take a look at the temperature data and try to estimate whether the overall slope of the data is similar to the slopes of those three lines (from the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports). If you were to calculate the slope of the data WITH error bars, the model predictions would very likely be in that range. |
Translation: "Notice how accurately our corrected 2007 models predict the past, before 2007! This refutes the absurd claim that our 1990, 1995, and 2001 models turned out to be way off. Also, you just wait and see; even though it looks like we overshot the trend line, the long term trend will match the prediction and we'll end up being right, because we say so. You'll see this in the future, therefore you are proven wrong today."
Fuck me, that is funny! Are you telling me shit like this passes peer review? 
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | we have no idea how much of the warming is due to carbon dioxide and how much is due to other factors, anthropogenic or natural |
FFS. We do know without a shadow of a doubt. What exactly are you trying to claim is the "real" cause? |
You're knee-jerking. I'm not claiming anything is the "real cause". I'm saying exactly what I said: "We have no idea how much of the warming is due to carbon dioxide and how much is due to other factors, anthropogenic or natural." In other words, both are at work to some unknown extent, and through mechanisms not fully understood, of which anthropogenic greenhouse gases is just one.
Or maybe you believe anthropogenic causes are the only ones, and the causes of all the other warming this planet has experienced in the past, including greenhouse Earth which has been the planet's natural state for 80% of its existence, and which we are not in now, have magically vanished because Al Gore and you showed up and started fapping allegro staccato around the Jebus campfire.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | And proof is demonstrated by the number of signatories. Wow. |
If they are qualified to have an opinion, and they base their opinions on solid science, their opinion matters. If they are not qualified - eg your astronauts and weather forecasters - their opinion does not matter a damn.
| pjp wrote: | | The degree to which it is happening and the affects remain theoretical and data (which I've posted about) along the way makes it clear that it is still theory. |
Ah the "only a theory" argument. That is a shorthand for ignorance, an excuse for refusing to engage with scientific knowledge. Creationists like to insist that evolution is "only a theory" too.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | And proof is demonstrated by the number of signatories. Wow. |
If they are qualified to have an opinion, and they base their opinions on solid science, their opinion matters. If they are not qualified - eg your astronauts and weather forecasters - their opinion does not matter a damn. |
Like you -- you're not qualified, and your opinion does not matter a damn.
In fact, your religion-like adherence to pseudo-science an non-quantitative bullshit (like "stop burning all carbon now" ) makes you less qualified than the average person. You like to talk a lot about science, but you're about as far from science at one can get.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Like you -- you're not qualified, and your opinion does not matter a damn. |
You do not know what my qualifications might be. Regardless, I have not been expressing personal opinions. I have simply been explaining climate science. You would find this all out for yourself if you would make an effort to learn.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, forgive me. Please indulge us with your qualifications.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | Creationists like to insist that evolution is "only a theory" too. |
I can't speak for creationists, but many of them don't dispute evolution entirely. For example, evolution can be easily observed in those insects or whatever that measure generations in months or years, etc. What creationists often remain unconvinced about is the theory of our evolution from apes. And that aspect of the theory has not been proven, as last I heard, they were still searching for the "missing link." I'm sure many WBC-type creationists will disavow evolution forever, but that's entirely different.
Evolution has withstood the test of "time."
Let's take the climate change subject in a different direction.
Climate change is happening, but the details aren't that critical (as in the case of the "missing link"). Since we both agree the extremes aren't reality, we can move on from whether or not a tidbit here or there has significance.
What's the practical solution. Not the extremes of economic collapse or eliminating all humans, or the scams like carbon trading and whatnot.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Since we both agree the extremes aren't reality... |
I don't think we do agree. Even if we set Lovelock aside, moderate amounts of warming will still have severe consequences. In this century we will experience famine, drought, flood and massive species loss in various parts of the globe. That's pretty extreme, although nowhere near as bad as Lovelock's predictions.
| pjp wrote: | | What's the practical solution. Not the extremes of economic collapse or eliminating all humans, or the scams like carbon trading and whatnot. |
Stop burning carbon just as fast as we can. We've run out of time.
CO2 emissions are just a sympton of the wider problem of increasing population and consumption. We will have to address that too.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | CO2 emissions are just a sympton of the wider problem of increasing population and consumption. We will have to address that too. |
To be morally consistent and not a complete hypocrite, you should kill yourself right now.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | I don't think we do agree. Even if we set Lovelock aside, moderate amounts of warming will still have severe consequences. In this century we will experience famine, drought, flood and massive species loss in various parts of the globe. That's pretty extreme, although nowhere near as bad as Lovelock's predictions.
Stop burning carbon just as fast as we can. We've run out of time.
CO2 emissions are just a sympton of the wider problem of increasing population and consumption. We will have to address that too. |
My first reaction was to agree that we didn't agree. But I missed the 'century' reference. I think others not in the Lovelock-extreme category have predicted much less than 100 years, but perhaps not. I do think there is a risk of some significant damage, possibly within this century, but exactly what impact that has, who knows. I simply do not believe the science can make that nuanced a prediction.
I'm all for finding alternatives, but as yet, they aren't that viable. Fracking appears to be evil, enough IMO that we should severely limit how much is done. Find the least likely place for it to be devastating, and monitor. Possibly even stop and see what happens to earthquakes in places we've rarely seen them. That ignores our own drinking water. Pigs don't even shit where they eat.
I'm not among those that think a single alternative energy solution needs to be found. There probably won't be one. And maybe we can't leave fossil fuels completely for a very long time. Aircraft, etc. Electric is becoming more viable. And I'm really shocked bio-diesel isn't more readily available by now. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult. But that's all long term, probably won't really be in play for another 20-30 years.
But we can't stop manufacturing (at least not without a heavy carbon-footprint war on China :lol:). And I don't agree with banning the left's taget-du-jour.
My next vehicle is likely to be a truck, because that's what I need (at least for now, I'm not in a position to make that size purchase). But, if I can, I'd be willing to purchase a much more fuel efficient daily driver. As of yet, I wouldn't touch a used electric/hybrid, so that isn't likely to happen any time soon either.
But automobiles aren't the sole solution, even if they are a big part of it.
And that doesn't even consider the pesticides which seem to be devastating bees & other pollinators. That's not related to climate change, but could certainly have a huge and related impact. Might even look a little like it was caused by climate change.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
