for all you climate change nuts*

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

Hugh, here's a quote that might help:

"Deniers of global warming science say, 'Global warming has not been proven- it's only a theory.' Similarly, creationists delight in saying that, "Evolutionary theory has not been proven." This despite the fact that science can never prove anything- only mathematicians do proofs.

By contrast, in science we collect evidence and probe the natural world for testable ideas called hypotheses (or theories) that have predictive value. When the world is thus explained using these scientific processes, the results are not theories in the pejorative sense, but they represent the best provisional answers that science and society can presently provide. To disregard these findings in favor of the climate myths debunked in this book, for example, just because a more refined scientific theory may come along in the future, is the height of folly."

-John Harte, from the preface to Climate Myths

Egad!! C'mon Brian. You're better than that. You can't prove one hypothesis by proving another. And besides -
Evolution has been proven. It's CREATION that hasn't been dispelled. Even as a non-religious person, I still have a hard time grasping our starting point. Does that mean I believe in creationism? No. But, I can see the argument. Now, I don't see the Adam and Eve argument, but is it possible that something created whatever cell it was that got us started? I mean at some point SOMETHING had to be created. Even if it was just a magic trick. So, this comparison doesn't hold water.

And climate change has been proven, also (it's changing all the time!). We cool, we warm, so on and so forth. It's the siginificance of human impact that is the issue. If we all get wiped off the planet, the Earth is going to continue heating and cooling, leaning toward warmer b/c we have been heading OUT OF an ice age for millions of years. Until such point as we start heading back into one. Science has actually proven that.

And, none of this says we should not clean up the planet and what we are doing.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Hugh, here's a quote that might help:

"Deniers of global warming science say, 'Global warming has not been proven- it's only a theory.' Similarly, creationists delight in saying that, "Evolutionary theory has not been proven." This despite the fact that science can never prove anything- only mathematicians do proofs.

By contrast, in science we collect evidence and probe the natural world for testable ideas called hypotheses (or theories) that have predictive value. When the world is thus explained using these scientific processes, the results are not theories in the pejorative sense, but they represent the best provisional answers that science and society can presently provide. To disregard these findings in favor of the climate myths debunked in this book, for example, just because a more refined scientific theory may come along in the future, is the height of folly."

-John Harte, from the preface to Climate Myths

Egad!! C'mon Brian. You're better than that. You can't prove one hypothesis by proving another. And besides -
Evolution has been proven. It's CREATION that hasn't been dispelled. Even as a non-religious person, I still have a hard time grasping our starting point. Does that mean I believe in creationism? No. But, I can see the argument. Now, I don't see the Adam and Eve argument, but is it possible that something created whatever cell it was that got us started? I mean at some point SOMETHING had to be created. Even if it was just a magic trick. So, this comparison doesn't hold water.

And climate change has been proven, also (it's changing all the time!). We cool, we warm, so on and so forth. It's the siginificance of human impact that is the issue. If we all get wiped off the planet, the Earth is going to continue heating and cooling, leaning toward warmer b/c we have been heading OUT OF an ice age for millions of years. Until such point as we start heading back into one. Science has actually proven that.

And, none of this says we should not clean up the planet and what we are doing.

No, Edson, I can't do better than that quote. And I can't do better than 90 some percent of all published scientists. And I have to go to work. Ahh- and this was just getting good. Drat!

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Hugh, here's a quote that might help:

"Deniers of global warming science say, 'Global warming has not been proven- it's only a theory.' Similarly, creationists delight in saying that, "Evolutionary theory has not been proven." This despite the fact that science can never prove anything- only mathematicians do proofs.

By contrast, in science we collect evidence and probe the natural world for testable ideas called hypotheses (or theories) that have predictive value. When the world is thus explained using these scientific processes, the results are not theories in the pejorative sense, but they represent the best provisional answers that science and society can presently provide. To disregard these findings in favor of the climate myths debunked in this book, for example, just because a more refined scientific theory may come along in the future, is the height of folly."

-John Harte, from the preface to Climate Myths

Egad!! C'mon Brian. You're better than that. You can't prove one hypothesis by proving another. And besides -
Evolution has been proven. It's CREATION that hasn't been dispelled. Even as a non-religious person, I still have a hard time grasping our starting point. Does that mean I believe in creationism? No. But, I can see the argument. Now, I don't see the Adam and Eve argument, but is it possible that something created whatever cell it was that got us started? I mean at some point SOMETHING had to be created. Even if it was just a magic trick. So, this comparison doesn't hold water.

And climate change has been proven, also (it's changing all the time!). We cool, we warm, so on and so forth. It's the siginificance of human impact that is the issue. If we all get wiped off the planet, the Earth is going to continue heating and cooling, leaning toward warmer b/c we have been heading OUT OF an ice age for millions of years. Until such point as we start heading back into one. Science has actually proven that.

And, none of this says we should not clean up the planet and what we are doing.

No, Edson, I can't do better than that quote. And I can't do better than 90 some percent of all published scientists. And I have to go to work. Ahh- and this was just getting good. Drat!

Fair enough. But, remember, to use the prove a thesis with proof of a different thesis - there have been plenty of scientific conclusions that were considered universal truths that have been proven completely wrong. So, might does not make right (necessarily).

See you in the lounge car later. Have a great day at work!

know1

polaris_x wrote:

know1 wrote:

It also gets frustrating to see people point to single weather events as any kind of evidence of anything.

As the OP reminded us, the records we've kept on the weather and weather events are scientifically meaningless so we have almost nothing to compare to.

But, I don't think we should abuse the environment by any means.

sooo ... the scientists have said that a symptom of global warming will be more extreme weather events with significant disruption to "normal" weather patterns ... now, when we see weather records broken - we are not allowed to point to this as ongoing evidence? ...

the notion that our weather records are short in the history of the earth as a reason to discount the science is about as flawed as it gets ... how do we know smoking can cause lung cancer? ... do we have records of who had lung cancer in the 1300's?? ...

what is ultimately frustrating is that the basic science of global warming is not very hard to understand if one chooses to educate themselves instead of persistently looking for reasons not to believe because the topic has become politicized ...

We don't know what normal patterns are. We've only been measuring for the tiniest fraction of the earth's existence.

Shawshank

Now days people refuse to utilize logic and reason and instead just digest whatever is fed to them. I don't read the oil company playbook, nor do I read many opinions on this subject from either side. So I don't consider myself jaded at all. I simply use the common sense I was born with.

Let's take a reasonable look at climate change. Let me preface this by saying that I believe everyone should do their part to take care of the Earth. Just because I don't believe in man-made climate change does not mean that I dump my used oil in the yard, burn tires, or that I'm in favor of living in a filthy polluted environment, nor am I in favor of allowing big corporations the right to cause excessive pollution.

So with that being said, let us just establish a basic time frame for reference. Scientists believe the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. So as to not get ridiculous with the numbers, we will focus our time frame on just 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the entire existence of the Earth, which is just the last 4,500,000 years.

Let's break this down even further and represent our 4,500,000 years as just a single year to give us a better reference. So a full 365 day calendar year will represent our 4,500,000 years. We have been taking relatively accurate weather records for about 150 years. 150 years is roughly 0.003% (three one thousandths of a percent) of our 4,500,000 years. Using our one year reference scale, that equals about 15 minutes out of an ENTIRE year. So as you can see, we have only kept records for a very small amount of time. Think about 15 minutes in regards to a full year. It's nothing. Yet scientists will present theories as absolute inarguable fact based on their 15 minutes of data. Just for fun, if we had based our one year scale on the full age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years), we would have only been taking weather readings for about 0.9 seconds (nine tenths of a second) of that year.

People say, yeah but we can dig down and get core samples of the earth and know what the weather was like 100,000 years ago. I say, why stop at 100,000 years, let's go down 225,000 years. That 225,000 years still only equals 18 days on our scale, or about 5% of our 4,500,000 years. You cannot establish a valid scientific theory on such minimal data. In that 225,000 years we have had both warming and cooling periods, which had nothing to do with man, so why now?

Is this to say climate change is bogus? Absolutely not. Man-made climate change, in other words, the only reason the climate is changing is a direct result of man's actions and nothing else, is what I have a problem believing. We simply do not have enough evidence to support this as fact. The Earth's climate is, and always has been, somewhat cyclical. There have been dramatic changes in climate even in the last 1,200 years which cannot be explained by the actions of man.

I have no idea what causes global warming, or cooling...and nothing has proven definitively that it is man made. Anyone who says otherwise is just as short-sighted as those who deny there's any change in climate at all. The cancer analogy is flawed as well...taking our limited weather records, and comparing it to the long-term study we have of the human body is not even close to being the same. The time frame is grossly skewed. If you had never seen a human being before, and you had a tenth of a second to view one with cancer, would you be able to tell where the cancer came from? If it had occurred before? If it was in remission? If it was advancing? The answer is obviously no. That is the scale of time we are talking about when people try to produce definitive opinions on climate change. We've studied the life cycles of millions of human beings from birth til death for hundreds of years...you're talking about studying a subject that changes quickly, and has changes and illnesses that can easily be tracked, and those illnesses and changes can be seen in multiple subjects over the course of a very short period of time. As opposed to a planet that has been existence for billions of years, where we have no real knowledge of past events, and is almost impossible to accurately track. The fact is, climate change has happened in the past, well before the Industrial Revolution, and the changes were dramatic and came with alarming speed. Why would that stop now, regardless of what we do? Again, this is NOT saying we should just dump our shit everywhere. We should keep our planet healthy, we should walk when possible, and ride bikes, etc. That's just a part of being a good steward of what we've been given, and everyone should want to do that, regardless of what the climate is doing.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Shawshank wrote:

Now days people refuse to utilize logic and reason and instead just digest whatever is fed to them. I don't read the oil company playbook, nor do I read many opinions on this subject from either side. So I don't consider myself jaded at all. I simply use the common sense I was born with.

Let's take a reasonable look at climate change. Let me preface this by saying that I believe everyone should do their part to take care of the Earth. Just because I don't believe in man-made climate change does not mean that I dump my used oil in the yard, burn tires, or that I'm in favor of living in a filthy polluted environment, nor am I in favor of allowing big corporations the right to cause excessive pollution.

So with that being said, let us just establish a basic time frame for reference. Scientists believe the earth is approximately 4.5 Billion years old. So as to not get ridiculous with the numbers, we will focus our time frame on just 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) of the entire existence of the Earth, which is just the last 4,500,000 years.

Let's break this down even further and represent our 4,500,000 years as just a single year to give us a better reference. So a full 365 day calendar year will represent our 4,500,000 years. We have been taking relatively accurate weather records for about 150 years. 150 years is roughly 0.003% (three one thousandths of a percent) of our 4,500,000 years. Using our one year reference scale, that equals about 15 minutes out of an ENTIRE year. So as you can see, we have only kept records for a very small amount of time. Think about 15 minutes in regards to a full year. It's nothing. Yet scientists will present theories as absolute inarguable fact based on their 15 minutes of data. Just for fun, if we had based our one year scale on the full age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years), we would have only been taking weather readings for about 0.9 seconds (nine tenths of a second) of that year.

People say, yeah but we can dig down and get core samples of the earth and know what the weather was like 100,000 years ago. I say, why stop at 100,000 years, let's go down 225,000 years. That 225,000 years still only equals 18 days on our scale, or about 5% of our 4,500,000 years. You cannot establish a valid scientific theory on such minimal data. In that 225,000 years we have had both warming and cooling periods, which had nothing to do with man, so why now?

Is this to say climate change is bogus? Absolutely not. Man-made climate change, in other words, the only reason the climate is changing is a direct result of man's actions and nothing else, is what I have a problem believing. We simply do not have enough evidence to support this as fact. The Earth's climate is, and always has been, somewhat cyclical. There have been dramatic changes in climate even in the last 1,200 years which cannot be explained by the actions of man.

I have no idea what causes global warming, or cooling...and nothing has proven definitively that it is man made. Anyone who says otherwise is just as short-sighted as those who deny there's any change in climate at all. The cancer analogy is flawed as well...taking our limited weather records, and comparing it to the long-term study we have of the human body is not even close to being the same. The time frame is grossly skewed. If you had never seen a human being before, and you had a tenth of a second to view one with cancer, would you be able to tell where the cancer came from? If it had occurred before? If it was in remission? If it was advancing? The answer is obviously no. That is the scale of time we are talking about when people try to produce definitive opinions on climate change. We've studied the life cycles of millions of human beings from birth til death for hundreds of years...you're talking about studying a subject that changes quickly, and has changes and illnesses that can easily be tracked, and those illnesses and changes can be seen in multiple subjects over the course of a very short period of time. As opposed to a planet that has been existence for billions of years, where we have no real knowledge of past events, and is almost impossible to accurately track. The fact is, climate change has happened in the past, well before the Industrial Revolution, and the changes were dramatic and came with alarming speed. Why would that stop now, regardless of what we do? Again, this is NOT saying we should just dump our shit everywhere. We should keep our planet healthy, we should walk when possible, and ride bikes, etc. That's just a part of being a good steward of what we've been given, and everyone should want to do that, regardless of what the climate is doing.

this is exactly what I was getting at, except the above post looks like Einstein compared to my Johnny Knoxville.

very well said, Shawshank.

polaris_x

sorry ... i wish i had the time ... but you guys are simply wrong ...

we know global warming is man made because we can prove that increases in gHg warms the planet ... it's as simple as that ... why is it that if you take two rooms facing the sun and put blinds in one and none in the other ... the ones with blinds will be cooler?? ...

global warming is man made not because of simply temperature records but because the basic scientific principles prove cause and effect ... not having accurate temperature readings from 250 years ago is completely irrelevant ... going down that path is both foolhardy and distracting ...

there is global scientific consensus on AGW where no peer-reviewed piece proves otherwise ... and you guys are discrediting it based on big oil's talking point 101 ... it's frustrating beyond belief to hear the same things over and over again that have been addressed ...

polaris_x

i just wish people would take the time to educate themselves instead of falling for lies ...

polaris_x

Shawshank wrote:

I have no idea what causes global warming, or cooling...and nothing has proven definitively that it is man made. Anyone who says otherwise is just as short-sighted as those who deny there's any change in climate at all. The cancer analogy is flawed as well...taking our limited weather records, and comparing it to the long-term study we have of the human body is not even close to being the same. The time frame is grossly skewed. If you had never seen a human being before, and you had a tenth of a second to view one with cancer, would you be able to tell where the cancer came from? If it had occurred before? If it was in remission? If it was advancing? The answer is obviously no. That is the scale of time we are talking about when people try to produce definitive opinions on climate change. We've studied the life cycles of millions of human beings from birth til death for hundreds of years...you're talking about studying a subject that changes quickly, and has changes and illnesses that can easily be tracked, and those illnesses and changes can be seen in multiple subjects over the course of a very short period of time. As opposed to a planet that has been existence for billions of years, where we have no real knowledge of past events, and is almost impossible to accurately track. The fact is, climate change has happened in the past, well before the Industrial Revolution, and the changes were dramatic and came with alarming speed. Why would that stop now, regardless of what we do? Again, this is NOT saying we should just dump our shit everywhere. We should keep our planet healthy, we should walk when possible, and ride bikes, etc. That's just a part of being a good steward of what we've been given, and everyone should want to do that, regardless of what the climate is doing.

firstly ... have we studied humans since they've been on earth? ... hell no ... how does anyone know if cancer was present ... it's like any medical study that talks about incidence of any illness ... they may be going up but its also likely that people were not correctly diagnosed before ... do we ignore the current studies?

secondly ... the earth's climate has changed but not this rapidly ... all the other times the earth's climate change rapidly have been accounted for either by volcanic eruptions or other catastrophic events ...

thirdly ... if you believe the earth's climate has changed in the past and that it has a natural variability to it - you are subscribing to what is known as science ... and you are using science to base your opinion ... now, science is telling you something else but you choose to ignore it ...

Flutter Girl

Greenland was once covered in a lush rainforest..The world didn't end. Again I ask, when has the climate ever been stable?

Jeanwah

Humans caused the hole in the ozone. We consciously stopped the use of aerosol cans and changed our ways. Why is this so difficult for those who deny humans' responsibility in the destruction of our climate to believe? The ozone hole is still there. We can't change the atmosphere back to what it was. So why fight? Why not unify, move on, and do something constructive about the earth???

I'll tell you why. Because the hole in the ozone was never politicized. Because climate change has been ripped apart by our leaders (Bush administration) and Big Oil, we will forever be warped by politics and not by factual earth science.

Flutter Girl

Jeanwah wrote:

Humans caused the hole in the ozone. We consciously stopped the use of aerosol cans and changed our ways. Why is this so difficult for those who deny humans' responsibility in the destruction of our climate to believe? The ozone hole is still there. We can't change the atmosphere back to what it was. So why fight? Why not unify, move on, and do something constructive about the earth???

I'll tell you why. Because the hole in the ozone was never politicized. Because climate change has been ripped apart by our leaders (Bush administration) and Big Oil, we will forever be warped by politics and not by factual earth science.

I, for one, do not support the green movement. Not because I am ignorant or Bush and oil companies said whatever they said, or whatever other grabage reason the green folks claim of people like me. I refuse to follow it because the crap you all push is worse for the environment then anything you all claim it is better than. E85 produces 20 times more acetaldehyde than regular petrol, making it 2.5 times more damaging to the environment. Using crap like bamboo doesn't save trees. We primarily get it from South America where the farmers cut down the rainforest to grow the bamboo. Rainforest soil is very weak, it only supports about 4 crops. Then they cut down more rainforest to grow more bamboo so that we can be green and "save a tree". Nevermind that a law passed in the 80's made it so that all wood and paper products made in the US must be made from tree's grown on tree farms, resulting in a 40% growth of our wild tree population..and so on..When y'all stop pushing harmful crap, I might join ya.

Bentleyspop

Global warming is just a liberal plot to,,,,,

Raise your taxes
Abort your babies
Create more government
Take away your guns

:corn:

Jeanwah

Flutter Girl wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Humans caused the hole in the ozone. We consciously stopped the use of aerosol cans and changed our ways. Why is this so difficult for those who deny humans' responsibility in the destruction of our climate to believe? The ozone hole is still there. We can't change the atmosphere back to what it was. So why fight? Why not unify, move on, and do something constructive about the earth???

I'll tell you why. Because the hole in the ozone was never politicized. Because climate change has been ripped apart by our leaders (Bush administration) and Big Oil, we will forever be warped by politics and not by factual earth science.

I, for one, do not support the green movement.

I don't even have to read the rest of whatever you said, because you insist on politicizing the topic with the very. first. sentence. :roll:

oceaninmyeyes

A couple of weeks ago, my family went to see a documentary Chasing Ice. A National Geographic photographer set up cameras over the globe in places that are covered by glaciers. The cameras were left to record what happened to the glaciers over time. Pretty amazing stuff. I recommend that every one see this film.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

i just wish people would take the time to educate themselves instead of falling for lies ...

I wish you could understand the difference between argument and discussion.

brianlux

While we go on arguing and/or discussing this issue endlessly, the planet keeps warming up. The truth is, approximately 97 % of published scientist believe the current rapid rise global mean temperature is human caused. I don't understand why someone would bother to argue with that. In fact, that amazes me.

brianlux

Flutter Girl wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Humans caused the hole in the ozone. We consciously stopped the use of aerosol cans and changed our ways. Why is this so difficult for those who deny humans' responsibility in the destruction of our climate to believe? The ozone hole is still there. We can't change the atmosphere back to what it was. So why fight? Why not unify, move on, and do something constructive about the earth???

I'll tell you why. Because the hole in the ozone was never politicized. Because climate change has been ripped apart by our leaders (Bush administration) and Big Oil, we will forever be warped by politics and not by factual earth science.

I, for one, do not support the green movement. Not because I am ignorant or Bush and oil companies said whatever they said, or whatever other grabage reason the green folks claim of people like me. I refuse to follow it because the crap you all push is worse for the environment then anything you all claim it is better than. E85 produces 20 times more acetaldehyde than regular petrol, making it 2.5 times more damaging to the environment. Using crap like bamboo doesn't save trees. We primarily get it from South America where the farmers cut down the rainforest to grow the bamboo. Rainforest soil is very weak, it only supports about 4 crops. Then they cut down more rainforest to grow more bamboo so that we can be green and "save a tree". Nevermind that a law passed in the 80's made it so that all wood and paper products made in the US must be made from tree's grown on tree farms, resulting in a 40% growth of our wild tree population..and so on..When y'all stop pushing harmful crap, I might join ya.

The only green folks I know are all Martians I don't trust them sons of bitches any further than I can throw them.

Oh, and I don't push crap. I shovel it.

Prince Of Dorkness

I'm tired of dealing with the talking morons who claim that humans are not to blame for the drastic, terrifying climate change that's happening right now.

Saying "scientists are still debating the cause."

No. That is a lie.

"Scientists" who are are on payroll of the Oil Industry, a few idiot Republicans from Texas and one of the guys Michele Bachmann's husband is currently blowing are showing up on Fox "news," Michelle Malkin's Website of Lies and Anne Coulter's maxi pads, but real scientists are not debating it.

If you say they are, you are either dumb or full of shit.

Either way, you're not worth bothering with.

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

I, for one, do not support the green movement. Not because I am ignorant or Bush and oil companies said whatever they said, or whatever other grabage reason the green folks claim of people like me. I refuse to follow it because the crap you all push is worse for the environment then anything you all claim it is better than. E85 produces 20 times more acetaldehyde than regular petrol, making it 2.5 times more damaging to the environment. Using crap like bamboo doesn't save trees. We primarily get it from South America where the farmers cut down the rainforest to grow the bamboo. Rainforest soil is very weak, it only supports about 4 crops. Then they cut down more rainforest to grow more bamboo so that we can be green and "save a tree". Nevermind that a law passed in the 80's made it so that all wood and paper products made in the US must be made from tree's grown on tree farms, resulting in a 40% growth of our wild tree population..and so on..When y'all stop pushing harmful crap, I might join ya.

I love it when people prove how clueless, uninformed and easy to fool they are.

It's a gift from baby Jesus.