Global Warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
/ Global Warming? #2,181  
Don't you know that "science" is the belief in the ignorance of experts ?

My take on that is that knowledge is generated at such a rate, that knowledgeable today is ignorant tomorrow. As such you have to believe in the ignorance of the experts, because to stop with what they "know" is to share their ignorance. However, as Feynman did, scientists are always in the business of learning through discovery and experiment. It helps them keep current and up to date.

I find that having a good dose of healthy skepticism is a good counterbalance to the pompous when dealing with an expert. However it is easy to tell when they begin to talk if they know their stuff.
 
/ Global Warming? #2,182  
...scientists are always in the business of learning through discovery and experiment. It helps them keep current and up to date....

Funny you mention the word "business" in this analogy...all business's (and universities) have an agenda...those scientists employed by or funded by businesses or universities etc. follow the same agenda...it has nothing to do with any conspiracy theories..it's called "job security"...


I find that having a good dose of healthy skepticism is a good counterbalance to the pompous when dealing with an expert.

In the same breath you should also cite the "pompous" attitude of so many that believe a majority of "scientists" that are paid and or funded by "business" interests (and their agendas)...again...there is no conspiracy theories...it's basic common sense...unseen by the highly gullible and naive...

And BTW...most (if not all) universities (And their funding deciding panels) have business interests and agendas...
 
/ Global Warming? #2,183  
Is it funny how everyone thinks the weather should be as it was while you were a child growing up. What's that a 15 year period or so, from age 4-18 is what is remembered and is automatically considered normal. Doesn't matter if you were there during a long drought or a cold period or a warm period that's the way it's supposed to be forever.

HS
 
/ Global Warming? #2,184  
Religion has terrible record in seeking truth. Not only the church was not seeking truth it used to burn people for saying the obvious truth such as the Earth is round and rotates. If church has the power it had in "dark ages" (it was called dark ages exactly for that for that reason) we would still be made believe that earth is flat and is a center of universe.

There are so many ways to respond to that.

Let me try an unconventional approach.

The Literary work that supports your view well... is the Bible.

The Cross. He was crucified. For Blasphemy.

He was killed. By religion. His OWN religion.

He did not come because humanity was fine. He came because humanity is dead.

It is not the healthy who need a doctor. But the sick.

......................................................

Another thought, less profound.

Some police are corrupt.

But I bet you will pull over when one is behind you with the lights flashing...at you. And you will pay the fine. Even though there are some who are corrupt. The Law stands and the enforcer is over you... even though some are corrupt.

.....................................................

All of religions flaws, are not evidence that the Creator is not real.

Humanity's flaws are evidence that He is very real.
 
/ Global Warming? #2,185  
Easy to see why people think atheists have turned to the green movement for a sense of fulfillment in their lives. Wow these last few pages prove that observation to be true.

HS
 
/ Global Warming? #2,186  
If human activity can change the weather (and my personal opinion is that it can),
then it is a knob that can be turned by altering human activity.
Seems like a valuable thing to know.
All these years and nobody knew there was a thermostat in the room.
The fact that it may exist bothers some people and they will deny it,
regardless of what the facts are.
Others will see the utility of the thing and use it to their own gain.
Those who use it to their own gain do so at the (potential) detriment of the denier.
Better to understand what is and how to use it than to call it a witch and burn it.
 
/ Global Warming? #2,187  
Easy to see why people think atheists have turned to the green movement for a sense of fulfillment in their lives. Wow these last few pages prove that observation to be true.

HS

I don't know. Maybe I'm just mixed up ...that noah story sure looks interesting, and I hear there is a good Jonah story too, and a Moby Dick story. Which one should I read first....oh the shortest....trouble is I've read them already. Laying back in a field on a windy day is a whole lot more entertaining! Talk about turning to green! -Whole lot better than crucifixion talk!
 
/ Global Warming? #2,188  
/pine said:
Funny you mention the word "business" in this analogy...all business's (and universities) have an agenda...those scientists employed by or funded by businesses or universities etc. follow the same agenda...it has nothing to do with any conspiracy theories..it's called "job security"...

In the same breath you should also cite the "pompous" attitude of so many that believe a majority of "scientists" that are paid and or funded by "business" interests (and their agendas)...again...there is no conspiracy theories...it's basic common sense...unseen by the highly gullible and naive...

And BTW...most (if not all) universities (And their funding deciding panels) have business interests and agendas...

So, the fact that scientists are gainfully employed and have jobs is evidence that their work is biased? The fact that universities have endowments or business interests is evidence that their work is all biased too. Do you think unemployed scientists are more likely to tell the truth? Where do you come up with these ideas? Are you guys all commies? Nah, just dittoheads. I thought private enterprise was the solution to all our problems. Your understanding of the scientific process is remarkably naive.

Is Rush Limbaugh University your only trusted reference? Your paranoid and remarkably naive view off how science is done makes it rather hard to have any rational discussion. Do you not understand how shooting down an existing theory is about the most exciting and career enhancing move any scientist can make short of coming up with a break through new theory? Do you understand how many hundreds of young climate scientists would give their left nuts to have solid data that undercut an existing theory? Are you so gullible that you imagine some dark force that keeps such contradictory theories out of the real scientific literature? Don't you think such data would make it to some respectable website or blog? I'm not counting the dittohead blogosphere here just any of the respected scientific blogs.

How many commissioned studies have investigated charges of weather science fraud? How many of those bodies came back with a positive finding? I'm not counting the self appointed right wingnut articles but rather those reported in reputable science journals. Oh, you don't think their are any reputable science journals....hey, in that case you are by definition a paranoid wingnut. Chatter away with each other but be aware that even Romney accepts that global warming is real and he is open to the idea that man plays a role. So, you deniers are WAY out if touch with both scientific consensus and your own (or closest acceptable) presidential candidate. Great. Just keep up the looney behavior and please don't vote for anyone who disagrees with you on global warming, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, Cat Driver and Houston Scott are just dittohead blowhards but Slash, I think you understand this scientific process and should know perfectly well that mega conspiracies are virtually impossible to hide and that scientific misconduct is routinely outed when it is real. Why do you throw your hat into their corner? I can understand a rightist political stance but have trouble with the denigration of science purely for political purposes.
 
/ Global Warming? #2,189  
IslandTractor said:
So, the fact that scientists are gainfully employed and have jobs is evidence that their work is biased? The fact that universities have endowments or business interests is evidence that their work is all biased too. Do you think unemployed scientists are more likely to tell the truth? Where do you come up with these ideas? Are you guys all commies? Nah, just dittoheads. I thought private enterprise was the solution to all our problems. Your understanding of the scientific process is remarkably naive.

Is Rush Limbaugh University your only trusted reference? Your paranoid and remarkably naive view off how science is done makes it rather hard to have any rational discussion. Do you not understand how shooting down an existing theory is about the most exciting and career enhancing move any scientist can make short of coming up with a break through new theory? Do you understand how many hundreds of young climate scientists would give their left nuts to have solid data that undercut an existing theory? Are you so gullible that you imagine some dark force that keeps such contradictory theories out of the real scientific literature? Don't you think such data would make it to some respectable website or blog? I'm not counting the dittohead blogosphere here just any of the respected scientific blogs.

How many commissioned studies have investigated charges of weather science fraud? How many of those bodies came back with a positive finding? I'm not counting the self appointed right wingnut articles but rather those reported in reputable science journals. Oh, you don't think their are any reputable science journals....hey, in that case you are by definition a paranoid wingnut. Chatter away with each other but be aware that even Romney accepts that global warming is real and he is open to the idea that man plays a role. So, you deniers are WAY out if touch with both scientific consensus and your own (or closest acceptable) presidential candidate. Great. Just keep up the looney behavior and please don't vote for anyone who disagrees with you on global warming, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, Cat Driver and Houston Scott are just dittohead blowhards but Slash, I think you understand this scientific process and should know perfectly well that mega conspiracies are virtually impossible to hide and that scientific misconduct is routinely outed when it is real. Why do you throw your hat into their corner? I can understand a rightist political stance but have trouble with the denigration of science purely for political purposes.

IslandTractor said:
So, the fact that scientists are gainfully employed and have jobs is evidence that their work is biased? The fact that universities have endowments or business interests is evidence that their work is all biased too. Do you think unemployed scientists are more likely to tell the truth? Where do you come up with these ideas? Are you guys all commies? Nah, just dittoheads. I thought private enterprise was the solution to all our problems. Your understanding of the scientific process is remarkably naive.

Is Rush Limbaugh University your only trusted reference? Your paranoid and remarkably naive view off how science is done makes it rather hard to have any rational discussion. Do you not understand how shooting down an existing theory is about the most exciting and career enhancing move any scientist can make short of coming up with a break through new theory? Do you understand how many hundreds of young climate scientists would give their left nuts to have solid data that undercut an existing theory? Are you so gullible that you imagine some dark force that keeps such contradictory theories out of the real scientific literature? Don't you think such data would make it to some respectable website or blog? I'm not counting the dittohead blogosphere here just any of the respected scientific blogs.

How many commissioned studies have investigated charges of weather science fraud? How many of those bodies came back with a positive finding? I'm not counting the self appointed right wingnut articles but rather those reported in reputable science journals. Oh, you don't think their are any reputable science journals....hey, in that case you are by definition a paranoid wingnut. Chatter away with each other but be aware that even Romney accepts that global warming is real and he is open to the idea that man plays a role. So, you deniers are WAY out if touch with both scientific consensus and your own (or closest acceptable) presidential candidate. Great. Just keep up the looney behavior and please don't vote for anyone who disagrees with you on global warming, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, Cat Driver and Houston Scott are just dittohead blowhards but Slash, I think you understand this scientific process and should know perfectly well that mega conspiracies are virtually impossible to hide and that scientific misconduct is routinely outed when it is real. Why do you throw your hat into their corner? I can understand a rightist political stance but have trouble with the denigration of science purely for political purposes.

If you don't think that a scientist or whomever has a vested interest in getting a paycheck, your not ground in reality. And the jab at free enterprise will only paint you as a commie. But that is the thing isn't it. We've covered that chapter already. Hard to dispute their own words. You carry the card or just donate to the cause?

How do you get a Phd you ask. Like say in climatology. Why you have a large study that adds to the field of climatology. A peer reviewed study with hard data kept on file for either 5 or 10 years. Do you think your peers would support your study proving them a fraud? You think you even get a BS or masters in climatology when your thesis is about ice at the south pole increasing? I wouldnt see a lot of As in your future trying to prove the estblishment is wrong. And lets be honest, few will try. I'm sorry to say it's that way in most fields. Theres little room for out of the box ideas. It's not hard to understand when you know how these communities work.

Oh and there's no consensus. Not by a long shot.

Great job on the name calling.

Btw What did you find out about Mr. Hansen?
 
/ Global Warming? #2,190  
Rainbody said:
If you don't think that a scientist or whomever has a vested interest in getting a paycheck, your not ground in reality. And the jab at free enterprise will only paint you as a commie. But that is the thing isn't it. We've covered that chapter already. Hard to dispute their own words. You carry the card or just donate to the cause?

How do you get a Phd you ask. Like say in climatology. Why you have a large study that adds to the field of climatology. A peer reviewed study with hard data kept on file for either 5 or 10 years. Do you think your peers would support your study proving them a fraud? You think you even get a BS or masters in climatology when your thesis is about ice at the south pole increasing? I wouldnt see a lot of As in your future trying to prove the estblishment is wrong. And lets be honest, few will try. I'm sorry to say it's that way in most fields. Theres little room for out of the box ideas. It's not hard to understand when you know how these communities work.

Oh and there's no consensus. Not by a long shot.

Great job on the name calling.

Btw What did you find out about Mr. Hansen?

You clearly have no idea how science works. Presenting data that contradicts accepted wisdom is exactly what gets you attention and promotion in an academic setting. The naive view that non commercial science is all about kissing butt is simply rediculous and flat out wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff?

In commercial science such as pharmaceutical research, results not pleasing to the employer are often suppressed though even that is much more difficult now than in the past due to new NIH and FDA regulations and policies. I'm sure there are other commercial examples and perhaps some government lab examples (Congress does like to meddle via the budget process) but it is REALLY hard to suppress academic research. Your example of climate scientists suppressing a doctoral candidates work because it contradicted earlier work is not believable as multiple individual scientists would review any such work and they love cutting each other down a peg or two. If Prof A tried to suppress work. Profs B,C and D would have a field day. We would all hear about it in near real time.

The Internet allows anyone whose work is suppressed to "publish" on line without further peer review or control. Where are the data that are being suppressed? This notion that contradictory data is being suppressed is just another variation on black helicopter boogie man conspiracy theory.
 
/ Global Warming? #2,191  
IslandTractor said:
You clearly have no idea how science works. Presenting data that contradicts accepted wisdom is exactly what gets you attention and promotion in an academic setting. The naive view that non commercial science is all about kissing butt is simply rediculous and flat out wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff?

In commercial science such as pharmaceutical research, results not pleasing to the employer are often suppressed though even that is much more difficult now than in the past due to new NIH and FDA regulations and policies. I'm sure there are other commercial examples and perhaps some government lab examples (Congress does like to meddle via the budget process) but it is REALLY hard to suppress academic research. Your example of climate scientists suppressing a doctoral candidates work because it contradicted earlier work is not believable as multiple individual scientists would review any such work and they love cutting each other down a peg or two. If Prof A tried to suppress work. Profs B,C and D would have a field day. We would all hear about it in near real time.

The Internet allows anyone whose work is suppressed to "publish" on line without further peer review or control. Where are the data that are being suppressed? This notion that contradictory data is being suppressed is just another variation on black helicopter boogie man conspiracy theory.

Where to begin? How many students you know get As by calling out the prof? Yeah whole bunches of those. Lots of students getting in climatology to debunk it.
Im not even going to get into how the elected president of the field, puts out the direction for the field. Take a look at AMS a few years back. Ever read that letter from Prof saying how his community was being hijacked. Its been post. Put down party line and that red drink and come to reality.

As for studies getting pigeon holed, there's plenty out there. They just get ignored (tree ring study in Europe) because they don't meet "shock value". ( see prior quotes from NASA).
I know it's a tough reality to face that beloved academia is as faulty as the rest of us.

Still not biting on the political flavor of science? The federal studies calling people inferior in past where labeled science. Nothing political there. Nope not an agenda at all. Just pure science.

How about that homework on Hansen? Good guy? Bad Guy? How about fraud?

Bottom line is that these studies are to serve a political purpose. The results are adjusted.If you can't see that, well I can't hold your hand and I honestly wish the best for you.

PS the black helicopters are the good guys. Unless your a commie. Best of luck!
 
/ Global Warming? #2,192  
/ Global Warming? #2,193  
There are so many ways to respond to that.

Let me try an unconventional approach.
Humanity's flaws are evidence that He is very real.
You cant develop that in any logical fashion.
 
/ Global Warming? #2,195  
SPYDERLK said:
You cant develop that in any logical fashion.

Your conclusion precedes discussion. Like your experiments?
 
/ Global Warming? #2,196  
Dehydration.

Who says science and the bible can't be reconciled? Just imagine...a lyophilized elephant...all I can say is you better have him sealed in a glass tube or else make sure the storage room is water tight! :)
 
/ Global Warming? #2,197  
If you don't think that a scientist or whomever has a vested interest in getting a paycheck, your not ground in reality. And the jab at free enterprise will only paint you as a commie. But that is the thing isn't it. We've covered that chapter already. Hard to dispute their own words. You carry the card or just donate to the cause?

How do you get a Phd you ask. Like say in climatology. Why you have a large study that adds to the field of climatology. A peer reviewed study with hard data kept on file for either 5 or 10 years. Do you think your peers would support your study proving them a fraud? You think you even get a BS or masters in climatology when your thesis is about ice at the south pole increasing? I wouldnt see a lot of As in your future trying to prove the estblishment is wrong. And lets be honest, few will try. I'm sorry to say it's that way in most fields. Theres little room for out of the box ideas. It's not hard to understand when you know how these communities work.

Oh and there's no consensus. Not by a long shot.

Great job on the name calling.

Btw What did you find out about Mr. Hansen?

Well said...:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
/ Global Warming? #2,198  
Who says science and the bible can't be reconciled? Just imagine...a lyophilized elephant...all I can say is you better have him sealed in a glass tube or else make sure the storage room is water tight! :)
There is always the ultimate enablement to fall back on: The all powerful god. By definition ... and faith --The answer to any problem.
larry
 
/ Global Warming? #2,199  
What Kind of World Do We Live In?

In 2008, the famous naturalist David Attenborough expressed concern that modern schoolchildren could not identify common plants and insects found in nature, although previous generations identified them without hesitation. Modern children, it seemed, were cut off from the experience of nature, and from play in the natural world. Many factors were held up to blame: urban living; loss of open space; computers and the Internet; heavy homework schedules. But the upshot was that children were no longer being exposed to nature and no longer acquiring a direct experience of nature. It was ironic that this should be happening at a time when there was in the West an ever greater concern for the environment, and ever more ambitious steps proposed to protect it.

Indoctrinating children in proper environmental thought was a hallmark of the green movement, and so children were being instructed to protect something about which they knew nothing at all. It did not escape notice that this was exactly the formula that had led to well-intentioned environmental degradation in the past--the deterioration of American national parks being a prime example, and the American policy of forest fire prevention, another. Such policies would never have been instituted if people really understood the environments they were trying to protect.

The problem was that they thought they did. One can argue that the new generation of schoolchildren will emerge even more certain. If nothing else, school teaches that there is an answer to every question; only in the real world do young people discover that many aspects of life are uncertain, mysterious, and even unknowable. If you have a chance to play in nature, if you are sprayed by a beetle, if the color of a butterfly wing comes off on your fingers, if you watch a caterpillar spin its cocoon--you come away with a sense of mystery and uncertainty. The more you watch, the more mysterious the natural world becomes, and the more you realize how little you know. Along with its beauty, you may also come to experience its fecundity, its wastefulness, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, parasitism, and its violence. These qualities are not well-conveyed in textbooks.

Perhaps the single most important lesson to be learned by direct experience is that the natural world, with all its elements and interconnections, represents a complex system and therefore we cannot understand it and we cannot predict its behavior. It is delusional to behave as if we can, as it would be delusional to behave as if we could predict the stock market, another complex system. If someone claims to predict what a stock will do in the coming days, we know that person is either a crook or a charlatan. If an environmentalist makes similar claims about the environment, or an ecosystem, we have not yet learned to see him as a false prophet or a fool.

Human beings interact with complex systems very successfully. We do it all the time. But we do it by managing them, not by claiming to understand them. Managers interact with the system: they do something, watch for the response, and then do something else in an effort to get the result they want. There is an endless iterative interaction that acknowledges we don't know for sure what the system will do--we have to wait and see. We may have a hunch we know what will happen. We may be right much of the time. But we are never certain.

Interacting with the natural world, we are denied certainty. And always will be.


MICHAEL CRICHTON

August 28, 2008
 
/ Global Warming? #2,200  
What is the temp in NC? typical, atypical - I am curious.
When we first moved here- before I had the chimney up- October was a cold month. It was in the 30's and colder most nights in the house. We used to really bundle the kids up putting them to bed. Sometimes we'd find ice where it had spilled on the kitchen floor from the night before.
The window is wide open every night beside the bed. I hear the loons calling still from the lake a mile away. Frogs are out and about still, some bug I can't place is chirping through the night. I enjoy it- but the loss of summer days due to uncomfortable heat days makes it an easy thing to give up -if we could go back to what it was. I can dress for the cold, it is hard to dress for the heat.

You are using your memories to consider if the weather is typical. Per my memories, we are having a typical early October weather.

October Weather in North Carolina - Average Temperatures and Rainfall
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marketplace Items

MARATHON 25KW GENERATOR (A58214)
MARATHON 25KW...
2020 FORD F-150 XL CREW CAB TRUCK (A59823)
2020 FORD F-150 XL...
500 BBL FRAC TANK (A58214)
500 BBL FRAC TANK...
40' CONTAINER (A52706)
40' CONTAINER (A52706)
2019 INTERNATIONAL LT625 TANDEM AXLE SLEEPER (A59575)
2019 INTERNATIONAL...
2018 INTERNATIONAL 4300 26FT NON CDL BOX TRUCK (A58017)
2018 INTERNATIONAL...
 
Top