so yesterday I pull up next to a hummer

1234689

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    BackwardsBlues1 wrote:
    it's not exact, it's a statistical estimation coupled with engineering facts in this case. statistic estimation is how everything is done.

    I understand. I'm only saying that you can't accurately measure the manifestation of man's impact on the earth because there are many, many other unknown factors at play that blur the results. That's why simply going back and looking at ice cores does not paint a true picture. It shows the end result without knowing the factors that went into that result.

    (and I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. I appreciate your comments and input)
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    does anyone doubt the science behind "the greenhouse effect"? ... if so - on what basis do you debunk this science?
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    know1 wrote:
    I'm sure it can be done under controlled conditions, but the earth and what it was like hundreds or years ago is NOT a controlled condition. Therefore, the emmissions do not always translate into an exact correlated change in temperature that is accurately represented in an ice core.
    Unless you're a scientist then I'm going to completely disregard this statement and encourage everyone else on the board to do the same. I take that back, even if you are a scientist....because the vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you. The earth is not a controlled condition because of what humans have done to it. Maybe the studies would be more accurate if we weren't living in the age of "Humans Gone Wild" but still, science is not on your side.
  • BackwardsBlues1
    BackwardsBlues1 Posts: 152
    know1 wrote:
    I understand. I'm only saying that you can't accurately measure the manifestation of man's impact on the earth because there are many, many other unknown factors at play that blur the results. That's why simply going back and looking at ice cores does not paint a true picture. It shows the end result without knowing the factors that went into that result.

    (and I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. I appreciate your comments and input)


    oh I know you're not being a jerk.

    I think you're missing that the data from the ice cores is not the uncertain part. I mean they can get really accurate measurements of co2 concentrations over time from those. The uncertainty (and there is a ton of it in climate change science, no one disputes that, it's the biggest problem) stems from measuring the human activity. So I mean you get it, it's just a different source for the uncertainty than you are thinking of.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    know1 wrote:
    I understand. I'm only saying that you can't accurately measure the manifestation of man's impact on the earth because there are many, many other unknown factors at play that blur the results. That's why simply going back and looking at ice cores does not paint a true picture. It shows the end result without knowing the factors that went into that result.

    (and I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. I appreciate your comments and input)
    Obviously the level of accuracy isn't perfect. But it's well-accepted within the scientific community that the ice-core studies are in fact valid.

    Are you claiming that since we cannot verify 100% the complete perfection of these studies that it's now okay to destroy the planet?
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Unless you're a scientist then I'm going to completely disregard this statement and encourage everyone else on the board to do the same. I take that back, even if you are a scientist....because the vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you. The earth is not a controlled condition because of what humans have done to it. Maybe the studies would be more accurate if we weren't living in the age of "Humans Gone Wild" but still, science is not on your side.

    Oh sure - scientists wouldn't be biased about the justification for their work, would they?

    And by the way, what is a "scientist"?

    The number of variables that go into the climate, etc., of the earth is exactly what makes it difficult to study and draw conclusions from.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Are you claiming that since we cannot verify 100% the complete perfection of these studies that it's now okay to destroy the planet?

    Absolutely not - and that's the same argument that these discussions always degenerate into. That's why I put the statement about cleaning up other people's trash.

    I do NOT think it's OK to destroy the planet. The entirety of what I'm saying is that I believe the "science" behind determining man's impact is shaky at best due to the multitude of variables. Nothing more, nothing less...
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    polaris wrote:
    does anyone doubt the science behind "the greenhouse effect"? ... if so - on what basis do you debunk this science?

    anyone?? ... i guess you would first have to know what the greenhouse effect is and seeing as many of you guys don't believe in climate change - i'm guessing you don't know what this is either ...
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Are you claiming that since we cannot verify 100% the complete perfection of these studies that it's now okay to destroy the planet?
    Having an accurate climate model would be a nice start.

    Should man act naturally in nature? Is the way we are currently acting natural for us?

    I believe we have no idea of our role in nature. For all we know maybe our natural role we are supposed to have is to fuck the earth over. How I think we should act then has absolutely nothing to do with science.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    does anyone doubt the science behind "the greenhouse effect"? ... if so - on what basis do you debunk this science?
    I doubt the accuracy of the science. When an accurate climate model isn't available I don't see how anyone could ever not doubt the accuracy of the science. The question is which scientists do I listen to, the doomsday scientists, the middle of the road scientists or the fair weather scientist.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    I doubt the accuracy of the science. When an accurate climate model isn't available I don't see how anyone could ever not doubt the accuracy of the science. The question is which scientists do I listen to, the doomsday scientists, the middle of the road scientists or the fair weather scientist.

    i said the greenhouse effect - we already know you doubt the science behind climate change simply because we cannot predict the exact consequences ... do you believe that toxic waste will give you cancer if we can't predict where and when you will get that cancer??

    anyways - no one seems to be able to debunk the science behind the greenhouse effect - i suggest all you naysayers first learn about that then come back and we'll go from there ...
  • BackwardsBlues1
    BackwardsBlues1 Posts: 152
    surferdude wrote:
    I doubt the accuracy of the science. When an accurate climate model isn't available I don't see how anyone could ever not doubt the accuracy of the science. The question is which scientists do I listen to, the doomsday scientists, the middle of the road scientists or the fair weather scientist.

    the data is uncertain, but the theory is correct...
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    know1 wrote:
    Absolutely not - and that's the same argument that these discussions always degenerate into. That's why I put the statement about cleaning up other people's trash.

    I do NOT think it's OK to destroy the planet. The entirety of what I'm saying is that I believe the "science" behind determining man's impact is shaky at best due to the multitude of variables. Nothing more, nothing less...
    I think "shaky at best" is a very inaccurate description of scientific studies. You're using an extremely generic defense on a very specific crisis. Sure there are variables which usually lead to ranges of dates/levels of co2 etc. Studies I've seen do account for the supposed lack of control in the subject.

    I do think it may be fair to maybe widen the ranges that are given (on both sides of the ball, of course), but the studies are as overwhelmingly consistent as they are frightening. Maybe the dangers of global warming aren't quite as crucial as the entire scientific community says, but to disregard the studies is an enormous fault.
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    polaris wrote:
    anyways - no one seems to be able to debunk the science behind the greenhouse effect - i suggest all you naysayers first learn about that then come back and we'll go from there ...
    I don't think anyone doubts the greenhouse effect. There are many differing opinions on the actual effect that the greenhouse effect has on the climate, hence the lack of accurate climate model.

    You're like when I asked a friend for directions. I started off by asking do you know how to get there. His answer was yes. I asked for details. He pointed west and said go that way. He pointed in the right direction, but failing being able to give details I could only surmise he didn't know the actual directions.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    BackwardsBlues1 wrote:
    the data is uncertain, but the theory is correct...
    Agree. Of even more uncertainty is the magnitude role that the greenhouse effect has on climate change. Bringing this fact up seems to bother some environmentalists though.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    I doubt the accuracy of the science. When an accurate climate model isn't available I don't see how anyone could ever not doubt the accuracy of the science. The question is which scientists do I listen to, the doomsday scientists, the middle of the road scientists or the fair weather scientist.
    I find it hardly fair to classify scienists as "doomsday" since the overwhelming majority believe that humans are to blame for climate change and that it will be irreversable within the next 50-100 years. Unelss of course it's your belief that doomsday is realistic....then you're probably on par with science and a lot of folks on this board.
  • Eliot Rosewater
    Eliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    surferdude wrote:
    I don't think anyone doubts the greenhouse effect. There are many differing opinions on the actual effect that the greenhouse effect has on the climate, hence the lack of accurate climate model.

    You're like when I asked a friend for directions. I started off by asking do you know how to get there. His answer was yes. I asked for details. He pointed west and said go that way. He pointed in the right direction, but failing being able to give details I could only surmise he didn't know the actual directions.
    Go watch Al Gore's movie. He's got directions.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    surferdude wrote:
    I don't think anyone doubts the greenhouse effect. There are many differing opinions on the actual effect that the greenhouse effect has on the climate, hence the lack of accurate climate model.

    You're like when I asked a friend for directions. I started off by asking do you know how to get there. His answer was yes. I asked for details. He pointed west and said go that way. He pointed in the right direction, but failing being able to give details I could only surmise he didn't know the actual directions.

    again - would you offer your home for dumping of toxic waste? ... if no one can accurately predict what the consequences are it must be ok?

    seriously - temperature is the single biggest variable affecting weather - this is a fact ... increasing the temperature destabilizes the weather ... the anectodal evidence is all around us ... you're in vancouver - when was the last time you experienced a heat wave like this? ... look at the algae formations threatening the fisheries ...

    while you wait for a 100% accurate model - the consequences continue to build up ...
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    I find it hardly fair to classify scienists as "doomsday" since the overwhelming majority believe that humans are to blame for climate change and that it will be irreversable within the next 50-100 years. Unelss of course it's your belief that doomsday is realistic....then you're probably on par with science and a lot of folks on this board.
    I've seen doomsday predictions as small as 10 years before irreversability. Given the consequences of irreversable climate change I suggest we do more about it, but it would also help if the rhetoric from some in the environmental field stopped. It would also be wise to learn how to better adapt to changing climates. After all our ability to adapt is what has allowed humans to thrive in numbers while other species have fallen by the wayside. But again, we have no idea of our intended role in nature. Maybe we are supposed t be the changers of earth's climate.

    I could go with 10 years or 200 years and still be on par with science.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Go watch Al Gore's movie. He's got directions.
    Let's see his accurate climate model first, then I'll watch his movie.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley

Categories