Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Global Warming Research
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 133 (441208)
12-16-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
12-16-2007 5:43 PM


1) How am I misrepresenting you regarding deceit and the scientists in the OP?
2&3) They did not say there was less solar radiation. They said the trends required for the quick global rise in temps were not seen. In fact the trends seen would result in cooling. It is only by sticking to your own peculiar theory of how the atmosphere functions, that you make an incorrect presumption of what is being said.
That it goes on to describe what was done, and explicitly states that things such as how the ocean stores heat will result in no gain in temp was clear. Apparently your only response to that is...
This is the statement of the journalist, not of the scientists, so I hardly see it as authoritative. It's contrary to thermodynamic reality. The atmosphere is what the energy of the Sun encounters first. Thus, it must invariably be the first to warm in response to a change in insolation.
This was your article. Are you now going to claim part of it is right and part of it is not? As it is he is discussing what the scientists did and their reasons. Though you claim it is contrary to thermodynamics, that is simply an assertion on your part, disputed by your own source, as well as the one I presented.
Yes, sunlight enters the atmosphere first. A majority of the energy ends up being absorbed by other parts of the earth than the atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the other portions of the earth have ways of dealing with energy increases besides raising temperature. This was discussed in my article. As it is phase changes do occur in the atmosphere. That you claim otherwise is just surreal.
What is a cloud? Have you seen clouds form? Have you seen clouds evaporate? Have you seen rain? Have you seen rain evaporate before it hits the ground?
My article discussed currents, which are part of both the atmosphere and oceans/lakes. Does the equation PV=nRT mean anything? Might parts of this equation change, yet temperature remain the same?
If you know thermodynamics then you should know Energy ~ Heat =/= Temp
If you feel you have demonstrated your full knowledge of climatology, and are convinced of your righteousness, then we can leave it here. I don't need to waste any more of my time.
On Gore's flick...
That's deceit - not giving the whole picture, when the whole picture contradicts your implication.
Well I'll tell you what. If I had meant to imply that the judge ruled the film had errors, then that would have been deceptive. But I did not mean to imply that. I have explained why I mentioned it. If it came off that way I can only say I am sorry for creating the confusion.
As far as I remembered his ruling had nothing to do with whether there were errors, but rather whether it could be shown in a classroom. There was a dispute regarding 9 errors in the film.
I have already stated whether they are called errors or not is a semantic debate. There are inaccurate statements, and points which can be contested. This is within the portion of RC you directly linked to. Do you need me to walk through the points?
On my quote from the site... I apologize for forgetting to add the link. That was simply a mistake. I had meant to. Though honestly you could have found it from your link. It is the second link in the first paragraph and titled "our original assessment".
The author is Eric Steig. He and some other climatologists went to a showing (I think in SF). I gave a pretty big chunk of the article. What was so incomprehensible about that?
Edited by Silent H, : send, said
Edited by Silent H, : lil fix

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2007 5:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 7:25 PM Silent H has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 62 of 133 (441304)
12-17-2007 1:23 AM


Whio to believe
There are so many points of view and so many have an axe to grind. Certainly big oil has an interest in saying it's all nonsense but there is also a huge industry growing that will get rich from combating CO2 emiisions. Let's face it Al Gore who had slipped into obscurity is now bigger than ever and getting filthy rich.
Here is a view from someone crash would call a denier.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
The link Tim Ball

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 1:48 AM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 133 (441310)
12-17-2007 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by GDR
12-17-2007 1:23 AM


Re: Whio to believe
Yeah, I'd call this guy a denier. 20-odd paragraphs and he never actually defends his main assertion:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Like, we're just supposed to take his word for it? The entire rest of his article is "the entire scientific consensus is against me, so I must be right." You know, the same argument cranks use.
At any rate Ball is known to lack honesty and credibility. He's published no original research in more than 11 years, and contrary to his assertions he does receive significant funding from the fossil fuel industry through the "Friends of Science" organization.
I'm not saying that every denialist is funded by Big Oil. But it's not really surprising how often you can find the Big Oil "donations" that fund their "travel" and "speaking engagements."
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=10867
Also - the thing I love most is when denialists cite Michael Crichton as an authority - a former doctor who makes his living making things up. I mean, Ball is citing a novel as a source, here. Unbelievable.
I don't know what to say, GDR. I don't see how you can see two equal sides on this. There's one side that denies obvious facts and makes assertions that are never defended and cites works of fiction as authoritative sources, all the while cashing in their paychecks from Big Oil; and then there's the side that draws conclusions, in a transparent process, from evidence and data, and receives funding - but not payment - from public, audited sources.
Surely you don't see any parity there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by GDR, posted 12-17-2007 1:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 12-17-2007 2:28 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 67 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 2:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 64 of 133 (441316)
12-17-2007 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 1:48 AM


Re: Who to believe
One reason I don't know what to believe is that frankly crash, as you and others often do, is you attack the person and not the message.
You talk about obvious facts like everything is black and white. I know enough to know that it isn't that simple. There are experts on both sides of the issue and it is too easy to say that they have been bought off by big oil or the big environmental industry.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 1:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 2:52 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 2:20 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 133 (441318)
12-17-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by GDR
12-17-2007 2:28 AM


Re: Who to believe
One reason I don't know what to believe is that frankly crash, as you and others often do, is you attack the person and not the message.
Hrm. I think you need to read my last message more closely, then, since it should have been abundantly obvious that I did attack Ball's message. He doesn't offer any evidence or proof beyond his own supposed expertise (and, of course, his "woe-is-me" whining) on why we should believe him when he says that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. As fallacious as that argument is, it's compounded by the fact that he's exaggerating his own expertise.
I know enough to know that it isn't that simple.
What do you know, precisely?
There are experts on both sides of the issue and it is too easy to say that they have been bought off by big oil or the big environmental industry.
Nearly all of this sentence is wrong.
But there's really not experts on both sides. The experts - for instance, the International Panel on Climate Change - are all on the side that says that there's really no question anymore that humans are causing climate change via the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.
The supposed "experts" on the other side invariably turn out to be no such thing; for instance, the guy who claimed to be "Oregon's state climatologist" when Oregon does not and never has had any such position. Tim Ball has similarly... exaggerated (to be kind about it) his credentials in the past.
And, look, there's really no such thing as the "big environmental industry." I mean, that's just nonsense. The major conservationist organizations are non-profit groups that can barely make ends meet; on the other hand, oil companies posted profits last year that exceeded any industry in the history of humankind. The idea that this is some kind of Clash of the Titans, with equal amounts of money and propaganda on both sides, is just ridiculous. This is David and Oily Goliath. There's just no comparing the good science of the people warning and educating about anthropogenic climate change to the well-funded lie machine of the denialists. No comparison at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 12-17-2007 2:28 AM GDR has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 133 (441409)
12-17-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by GDR
12-17-2007 2:28 AM


Re: Who to believe
Let me try and help. Ball is citing a very real phenomena, which is clearly evident in environmentalist fundies like crash. You can actually have a science background, do research in a field, and have people with absolutely no experience tell you what is true... because their movement believes something to be true. It cannot be challenged.
Now I don't know Ball, if he is a credible scientist or not, or if he is paid by BIG OIL or not. But what he discusses is true. That said...
There are some scientists maintaining a stance that human factors are not a factor in global warming, or not the major factor in global warming. While these are possibilities, they are becoming increasingly smaller possibilities. Indeed I have to severely doubt claims that GH gases are not a factor at all.
The scientific consensus is solid and growing, and the improved models and data speak louder than any political or ideological positions on this subject. Those who are remaining "behind" so to speak, like Linzen, are probably in error.
This is not unique in science. Einstein spent most of the remainder of his career fighting QM, which is a pretty solid theory. Of course he didn't get raked over the coals because there was no fanatical QM movement as there is in environmentalism.
I think the key thing to do is stay grounded. Don't leap to any "side" but take note what consensus is growing. That is usually a safe side to take in science. Not that that guarantees correctness (a good example is the wave nature of light) but that is usually how it works out. Make sure to get accounts which show the data and make clear cut analysis of it. If it ranges into hyperbolic commentary, then it may be time to start adding salt.
Personally, I would not believe anything a fanatical environmentalist has to say. If they point to something in science, go there and look it over carefully. It has, unfortunately for people like myself who are moderate environmentalists, turned into an industry, practically a church with a set dogma and paranoia surrounding both the earth (we are in peril!!!!) or some group of "others" (BIG OIL, deniers, etc).
Summing up... the science is growing more solid with better evidence and models suggesting that GH gases (and some other human effects like deforestation) are the larger contributors to recent increases in temps. The IPCC report would be a decent place to start gathering information on current consensus (though unlike how crash waves it about it is a political panel, not a purely scientific one).
The disaster scenarios are overwrought, unless humans don't use common sense in planning their communities. The nature of the earth is climate change, all the time. Regardless of GH gases, we will have ups and downs in temps (perhaps higher than we've ever had in the past, and certainly higher than we have now), and there will be corresponding changes in physical features of the earth.
Katrina is a great example. Some environmentalists have hijacked its imagery to discuss global warming. In fact the devastation was due to a totally different manmade problem, which could itself be called an environmental problem. If people think reducing GH gases will end such catastrophes, they are in for a rude awakening.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by GDR, posted 12-17-2007 2:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:30 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 12-17-2007 3:54 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 1:41 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 67 of 133 (441411)
12-17-2007 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 1:48 AM


Re: Whio to believe
I love most is when denialists cite Michael Crichton as an authority - a former doctor who makes his living making things up. I mean, Ball is citing a novel as a source, here. Unbelievable.
I saw Gore's slide show and his movie. Have you read Crichton's book? Do you know what Ball is referring to?
After the novel, NOT WITHIN IT, Crichton includes a section on the science of climate change and environmentalist hysteria. It is not simply his opinions, though he includes them. It is pretty much identical to Gore's "portrayal" of science. And if you are going to dig into people, at least Crichton was a scientist.
Gore was never a scientist, and has made his living making things up too. Usually fearmongering to get himself or his policies passed. Like say how music is going to destroy kids and families with their sexual content. Some of us remember who he was, before he donned his new emperor's clothes.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 1:48 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:24 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 133 (441421)
12-17-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Silent H
12-17-2007 2:28 PM


Re: Whio to believe
Have you read Crichton's book?
State of Fear? The novel? The work of fiction?
The rest of his books are shit, why would I bother?
It is pretty much identical to Gore's "portrayal" of science.
I guess if you can't tell the difference between a novel and a documentary, you'd think so. Still harping on those nonexistent "9 errors", Holmes?
And if you are going to dig into people, at least Crichton was a scientist.
Well, no, he was a surgeon, he's never been a scientist. He's a writer and TV producer. You know, a fabulist. He gets paid to make things up for a living. Is it any surprise he's the face of climate change denialism?
Gore was never a scientist, and has made his living making things up too.
Yeah yeah, blah blah blah. We're all very well of your personal vendetta against Gore, as well as the imprecations you've lodged against him without any evidence to support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 2:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 6:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 133 (441424)
12-17-2007 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
12-17-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Who to believe
Ball is citing a very real phenomena, which is clearly evident in environmentalist fundies like crash.
Oh, fuck you and your personal attacks, Holmes. Christ, it's inevitable - you use sound science and research to debunk nonsense, and you're inevitably referred to as a "fundamentalist."
I see we've reached the predictable phase where you abandon all pretense of defending your arguments and just start calling people names. It's so predictable.
But what he discusses is true.
Well, of course it is. Being accused of selling out and using exaggerated credentials to peddle junk science is the natural result when you sell out, exaggerate your credentials, and use them to peddle junk science.
Which is what he's irrefutably, objectively doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 2:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 70 of 133 (441431)
12-17-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
12-17-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Who to believe
Silent H writes:
The scientific consensus is solid and growing, and the improved models and data speak louder than any political or ideological positions on this subject. Those who are remaining "behind" so to speak, like Linzen, are probably in error.
Thanks. In the end I think that for most of us lay people we will accept that something should be done because the downside is a lot greater on the one side than the other. Having said that however, I think that the majority of people will side with someone who has concrete constructive ideas and the ways and means of implementing them without creating a global recession.
In the meantime I sure hope the techonolgy that will greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels comes along quickly.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 2:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 6:59 PM GDR has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 133 (441450)
12-17-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Whio to believe
State of Fear? The novel? The work of fiction?
No, not the novel. I have already explained this to you. After the novel is a nonfiction portion. I assume Ball was referring to that.
The nonfiction portion is as much a documentary as Gore's movie. Indeed Crichton's piece is at least about the subject matter. While Gore's slide show is indeed about global warming, the documentary is about Gore and his giving those slide shows. If it had stayed on topic I might have actually enjoyed the movie.
Well, no, he was a surgeon, he's never been a scientist.
Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. I'm surprised you believe people in medicine are not practicing science. Let me see... atheist, scientist. Surgeon, not. Got it.
As it stands Gore is not a scientist, either.
What other people have you seen quoting Crichton anyway? I'd hardly call him the face of climate change denialism.
Yeah yeah, blah blah blah.
I'm sorry, are you claiming Gore is a scientist, or was one? That he did not engage in a scaremongering campaign to get records labeled?
By the way, I gave you the link to the other page at RC.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 6:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 133 (441452)
12-17-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 3:30 PM


Re: Who to believe
Christ, it's inevitable - you use sound science and research to debunk nonsense, and you're inevitably referred to as a "fundamentalist."
Hmmmmmm, that sounds like what Ball was saying.
Anyway, as I said I have no idea who this Ball person is, or if he is a credible scientist. I even explained to GDR that he is likely in error, whether he is sincere or not.
What he discussed though is accurate. Thank you for more examples.
Perhaps you will let everyone know when you match his credentials in the field.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 6:52 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 133 (441453)
12-17-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
12-17-2007 6:43 PM


Re: Whio to believe
After the novel is a nonfiction portion.
Says who? What makes you think it's not fictional, since it's contained within the covers of a book that says its "a novel"?
I'm surprised you believe people in medicine are not practicing science.
Most of them aren't, no more than most vocationally-trained programmers are doing computer science. There's a difference between the mechanistic application of other people's research to practical problems within constraints that others have developed, and the creation of new knowledge through research.
A doctor who proscribes some aspirin when someone comes in with a headache isn't doing science, he's acting as a kind of plumber. He's looking up something in a book - not hypothesis testing.
As it stands Gore is not a scientist, either.
So what? Why are you so determined to tar this guy? Did he fuck your wife or something?
By the way, I gave you the link to the other page at RC.
Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 6:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 7:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 133 (441454)
12-17-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Silent H
12-17-2007 6:48 PM


Re: Who to believe
Perhaps you will let everyone know when you match his credentials in the field.
Just let me pop down to Kinko's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 12-17-2007 6:48 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 133 (441458)
12-17-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by GDR
12-17-2007 3:54 PM


Re: Who to believe
Well don't feel too bad, it isn't just lay people. Environmental science is new, the systems are extremely complex, and our data is not that old (geologically speaking).
People have to take what scientists can get, as they get it, and even they know it might not be complete. I think I read somewhere that it might take 100 years before we have sufficient data about the event we are living through, to put it in a proper perspective.
To my mind, eliminating GH gases and stopping deforestation has more to it than simply reducing temps. As I said, we really can eliminate all GHs, and have the temps skyrocket anyway. Which brings me to something you said...
I think that the majority of people will side with someone who has concrete constructive ideas and the ways and means of implementing them without creating a global recession.
The one thing which scientists are learning is that the state of earth is change, constant. Even within relatively calm periods many things are changing, enough that human life will always be impacted. It may be as simple as erosion, drought, or hurricanes. They will always be with us changing what we create and costing money (and lives).
I think... and again this is my opinion... we need to leave behind the idea of the environment being "cheap". It ought to be factored in very carefully and banked for ahead of time for any large scale societal construction (like cities). People should not be squeamish on having to pay big bucks to get something fixed, and realizing it will only be a temporary patch.
And of course increases in technology may very well pay off by making fixes cheaper in the future.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 12-17-2007 3:54 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024