|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: An inconvenient truth.... or lie? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Why, why, why? They were purported to be fraudsters and GW was mocked. If I called you a liar and made a mockery of your lifes work, would you just stand idley by? Edited by hooah212002, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
But why was there such a fuss about these emails being leaked? Invasion of privacy? Taking words out of context? False accusations? Theft? Just a guess, its how I would feel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
DrAdequate writes: That is a strange use of the word "logically". Logical consideration of cause and effect if aggregate net increase of global warming happens pertaining to weather cycles. No? . BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4970 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
But why was there such a fuss about these emails being leaked?
Invasion of privacy? Taking words out of context? False accusations? Theft? Just a guess, its how I would feel. Having read Hooah212002's message 68, in which an explanation is given of the way the content of the email was taken out of context, I fully accept your argument. In the larger picture of this whole subject, though, I do still feel that the way the scientists, politicians and media present the facts to the public is appalling. It really does come across as though they're all riding not so much a bandwagon as a gravy train. If the worst-case predicted scenarios unfold, we really are in trouble and the quality and urgency of information that is forthcoming is disgraceful. The way they are all behaving doesn't reflect the reality they claim they are trying to portray. This point is expressed much better than I could by Dominic Lawson in today's Independent newspaper: Dominic Lawson: Roll up, roll up for the great Copenhagen emissions-fest | The Independent | The Independent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4539 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes: I don't think it should be difficult to put together a simple document that any intelligent person could understand that would explain how the data is gathered, how reliable it is, and what the indications are. Uh huh. And how successful has it been trying to explain evolution in simple documents that any intelligent person could understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ZenMonkey,
ZenMonkey writes: Uh huh. And how successful has it been trying to explain evolution in simple documents that any intelligent person could understand? I read somewhere if you don't understand the subject well enough to explain it to a 10 year old and them be able to understand what you are talking about, you You don't understand the subject. Anybody can confuse the subject. Very few understand the subject regardless of what it is. So either could be explained if there was an explanation. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4970 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Uh huh. And how successful has it been trying to explain evolution in simple documents that any intelligent person could understand? I don't think it should be difficult to put together a simple document that any intelligent person could understand that would explain how the data is gathered, how reliable it is, and what the indications are. An entirely valid point. But there is a big difference in the relevance of the information. The public awareness of truth about subjects such as evolution, or the expansion of the Universe, etc, is not directly and urgently relevant to peoples lives in the same way that the many of the scenarios predicted by climate change is. When the HIV/AIDS problem arose in the 80s, there were huge campaigns from health organisations and governments around the world to compile the facts and present the public with clear information and advice. Sure, there may well have been mistakes and controversies (and still are some) but I don't recall governments faffing about and having massive conferences every few years to discuss the problem. They got it sorted. We need the same kind of positive action about climate change. It's the faffing about, the vagueness, etc, on one hand, combined with dogma on the other that causes people to be confused or sceptical, not only about the facts but about the true intentions, competence and sincerity of the authorities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I read somewhere if you don't understand the subject well enough to explain it to a 10 year old and them be able to understand what you are talking about, you You don't understand the subject. That only applies to subjects....that it applies to. Try explaining pi to a 10 year old. calculus? relativity? Pythagoreans theorom? physics? Edited by hooah212002, : spelling of Pythagorean
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Logical consideration of cause and effect if aggregate net increase of global warming happens pertaining to weather cycles. No? Well, it was somewhat amusing Buz, because you're using the term in the "common sense" definition...which isn;t really what the word means at all. "
quote: Unfortunately for you, "common sense" often has little to do with reality. What you, as a layperson, reason to be "likely" results of global warming are simply not the case. Evaporation could indeed increase...but unfortunately water vapor is actually a significant greenhouse gas, meaning the process accelerates itself. This can be somewhat diminished through increased cloud formation (as clouds reflect sunlight), but not all water vapor forms clouds, and trapped heat is still trapped. Actual scientists have provided estimates on how much land mass will be lost as the oceans rise using actual numbers and data from real-world observations. Aside from that, however, rising sea levels are only part of teh problem. The melting of the polar ice caps introduces large amounts of cold water into our oceanic system - something we take for granted, but which in reality drives all of the weather patterns on Earth. The temperature differentials that drive ocean currents also drive atmospheric currents like the Jet Stream...and that, for example, is what keeps northern Europe and the British Isles habitable. Large amounts of other greenhouse gases (and other things) are trapped in ice...and as the ice melts, those gasses will be released, accelerating the process further. A similar runaway warming effect was at one time hypothesized to have ben responsible for a mass extinction event, as large amounts of methane gas trapped in ice was released rapidly. Climate change isn't jsut about rising water levels. It's literally about changing the climate, everywhere on Earth. We know that monsoons strike asia, that hurricanes form off the coast of Africa and head West, that the Jet Stream is a current of air moving from west to east over the US and which drives th weather patterns for not only North America but influences Europe as well. Changing climates are not the end of the world, per se, because humanity has the ability to adapt to its nvironment pretty well. But not all animals and plants are able to do so. The disruption to the ecosystem could cause massive amounts of extinctions and migrations that uproot the status quo and leave us floundering, wondering where the fish went, why our crops wont grow in the same places, why it's so damned cold or hot, dealing with bizarre weather patterns, and so on. We're talking trillions of dollars or more in terms of cost, needing to be spent over a short time as we adapt to the changes. We're talking about millions of lives lost to starvation, disease, or natural disasters. We're talking about poorer coastal regions that don't have the money to erect levies and other structures being simply erased from the map, sometimes entire cultures gone. It's a very large problem, and basically no climate scientist argues that we're seeing the beginning of this process, and that these are the results we'll see if it continues - even on the order of raising global mean temperatures by just a degree or three. The only actual debate is whether humanity is responsible for the rising temperatures, meaning humanity can back off and slow down or prevent the process before we suffer the above consequences. Most of the scientific community has agreed that humanity is likely a major contributing factor in the current warming trend. This is preferable only because we would still possibly be able to do something about it. If the process is completely natural and cannot be influenced by humanity...we'd better just skip to the damage control. Nowhere in any of that, of course, is an intended mass reparation payment to anyone. This isn't a US problem or a Canadian problem or a Chinese problem. This is a problem caused by and affecting the entire globe, and throwing money at poorer countries isn't going to do squat. In fact, less developed countries will ironically suffer less in terms of population and property lost, simply because they don;t tend to have as much to lose in the first place. Destroying a coastal city on the African coast, for example, isn't as serious in terms of lives and dollars lost as the destruction of New York. The developed world will be pretty busy trying to protect its own already-developed infrastructure and population. I'm sure aid will be sent to other nations, but not the absurd "reparations" you've suggested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Again, are you joking or are you seriously this clueless? It's not the fact that they didn't publish these emails in the first place. It's the fact that they made such a fuss about the emails being published. Why, why, why? (1) Invasion of privacy. How would you like it if your emails are published? (2) Words taken out of context. How would you like it if your words are taken out of context to make you look like a liar? (3) Unethical accusations of the victim to shift the blame from the criminal. This is an especially important one. There have been cases where rape victims are demonized to shift the blame away from the rapist. The real culprit in this affair is the hacker and people like you who are interpreting the victims' words out of context to prove your agenda. (4) Shamelessness. This one is especially for people like you, chimp. Instead of recognizing a crime and invasion of privacy has been committed, you jumped on this opportunity to demonize the scientific community for your own agenda. Again, I really have to ask. Are you just joking around or are you genuinely shameless? Added by edit. I just realized what the problem is. You have a problem with empathizing with others. Before you make your next statement, do yourself a favor and try to ask yourself how you would react to such and such situation. Nobody likes their emails published for the world to see and judge. Nobody likes their property stolen. And certainly, nobody likes to be called a liar based on some words taken out of context. You people seem to have a problem applying the same situation to your own. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I'd like to see you try to explain quantum mechanics, electron orbitals, or calculus to a 10 year old. These words of wisdom from old folks like you are great, but... reality...
I read somewhere if you don't understand the subject well enough to explain it to a 10 year old and them be able to understand what you are talking about, you You don't understand the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rahvin writes: Well, it was somewhat amusing Buz, because you're using the term in the "common sense" definition...which isn;t really what the word means at all. " LOL, Rahvin. I used the term relating to "known statements, events or conditions etc. i.e. Online Dictionary's #1 primary definition of logic.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic. 2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year. 3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner. Rahvin writes: The only actual debate is whether humanity is responsible for the rising temperatures, meaning humanity can back off and slow down or prevent the process before we suffer the above consequences. Most of the scientific community has agreed that humanity is likely a major contributing factor in the current warming trend. The developed world will be pretty busy trying to protect its own already-developed infrastructure and population. I'm sure aid will be sent to other nations, but not the absurd "reparations" you've suggested. This thread has been about alleged scientific data upon which the UNand much of the scientific community has determined that humanity is likely a major factor in the current warming trend. There are other factors which relate to this, as to how the data is rigged. Upstate NY has been cited by DEC NY regulators as a high emmissions area so as to impose oppressive regulations on businesses and private affairs to the extent that we can't have any kind of open burning etc. The fact is that most of the manufacturing and industry has ceased to exist in upstate NY and there's relatively few left to pollute the environment. Bill Nojay, of WYSL 1040AM, Rochester has exposed sensor location rigging such as the above link described by SUNNY NY scientists and the DEC NY environment agency. Are the emails and this type of pseudo science just the tip of the iceburg relative to science's questionable data which has been persistently perported to have establish the US's role in global emmissions? Is our present administration's aversion to tap our energy resourses, to impose carbon tax, and to impose all kinds of regulations etc which diminish our freedoms being foisted upon us based upon pseudo scientific data? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
regulations on businesses and private affairs to the extent that we can't have any kind of open burning etc. The fact is that most of the manufacturing and industry has ceased to exist in upstate NY and there's relatively few left to pollute the environment.
So your goverment required industries to stop dumping toxins into the air, some did and some did not. You are upset because the polluting industries, the ones who could not make a profit without ruining your breathing air, moved on or died out. This bothers you? Did you know that its often more profitable for such industries to move to third world countries where they can pollute to their hearts content? This must be great news for you since it frees up innocent western nations from having to pay these countries like you said earlier. Soon enough third world nations will have to pay the U.S. for all the carbon they are emitting due to the influx of industry. I guess the UN conspiracy is not so well thought out after all. Third world nations will continue to be poor due to carbon taxes paid out to western nations. Plus we have clean air. Sounds like a win win for the good guys if I understand your position correctly. This could all fall apart if industries just filtered out the toxins though. What would be the point of all this conspiring if our air was clean and western nations remained filthy rich?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2644 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hey Rahvin,
I'm just a lurker standing on the corner (so to speak) but decided to jump in for a dip!
Rahvin - Msg 99 - writes: Unfortunately for you, "common sense" often has little to do with reality... Evaporation could indeed increase...but unfortunately water vapor is actually a significant greenhouse gas, meaning the process accelerates itself... Large amounts of other greenhouse gases (and other things) are trapped in ice...and as the ice melts, those gasses will be released, accelerating the process further. A similar runaway warming effect was at one time hypothesized to have ben [sic] responsible for a mass extinction event, as large amounts of methane gas trapped in ice was released rapidly. Aside from hectoring or goading, you seem to portray a high level of knowledge (or possibly confidence) on this topic. Would you please clarify whether you believe a "runaway warming effect" has occurred on Earth as you mentioned above?
If you do believe a "runaway warming effect" has occurred, I'm not really interested in what inferences may influence you to believe it has occurred in the past or that we are currently teetering on the precipice of a global runaway catastrophe, but... I do have a couple of questions: 1) Do you believe an inferred "runaway warming event" naturally abated and reversed? 2) If so, would you mind detailing for me and other lurkers what (specific) natural phenomenon you believe had such a strong impact as to stop and reverse such a "runaway" warming event? I'm trying to ascertain the depth of understanding how climate mechanisms actually work rather than suppositions. - Thanks and Question Everything -Eye-Squared-R
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eye-Squared-R Member (Idle past 2644 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Hello Taz,
Taz - Msg 100 - writes: Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Again, are you joking or are you seriously this clueless? It's not the fact that they didn't publish these emails in the first place. It's the fact that they made such a fuss about the emails being published. Why, why, why?(1) Invasion of privacy... (2) Words taken out of context... (3) Unethical accusations of the victim to shift the blame... (4) Shamelessness... This one is especially for people like you, chimp. Have you read some of the hijacked emails that directed others within the global warming research community to "delete" certain communications? Are you aware that these directions to "delete" occurred before the emails were made public? As far as I know, most people in research are proud of their communications and don't need to hide anything. What do you suppose were the reasons for this desire among certain research folks to conceal communications? Shamelessness? - Thanks and Question Everything -Eye-Squared-R
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024