Global warming
Comments
-
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.0 -
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!0 -
I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation.
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.rgambs said:I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation.
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.0 -
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.brianlux said:
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!0 -
Well, my bad. I can see you are a real science expert, BS. Thank you for helping me be a better, well informed student of climate science. I'll trade my Prius in for a Hummer next week, jack up the AC this summer, replace all my CFL's with real light bulbs, burn my plastic trash and stop worrying about all this global warming nonsense and the so-called negative affect it will have on all our kids (the hell with them anyway- let them fend for themselves!)BS44325 said:
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.brianlux said:
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Happy, carefree days on the edge of the apocalypse! Yee haw!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!BS44325 said:
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.rgambs said:I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation.
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.BS44325 said:
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.brianlux said:
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'
Post edited by eddiec on0 -
It is quite interesting that when science is actually discussed you drift to sarcasm. Your answer reveals yourself and the movement to be one that no longer tests and re-tests but simply just believes.brianlux said:
Well, my bad. I can see you are a real science expert, BS. Thank you for helping me be a better, well informed student of climate science. I'll trade my Prius in for a Hummer next week, jack up the AC this summer, replace all my CFL's with real light bulbs, burn my plastic trash and stop worrying about all this global warming nonsense and the so-called negative affect it will have on all our kids (the hell with them anyway- let them fend for themselves!)BS44325 said:
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.brianlux said:
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Happy, carefree days on the edge of the apocalypse! Yee haw!0 -
There is evidence that humans impact this planet but no evidence that "humans are destroying this planet". That is a statement of emotion and not fact.eddiec said:
Actually, a lot of people say climate change is not happening.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
Scientists are only trying to tell us 'scientifically' what we can see with are own eyes. Humans are destroying this planet and anyone who argues with that is just blind. Yes the earth has gone through heating/cooling cycles but never at this rate.BS44325 said:
A large majority of published scientists told Americans to follow the food guide over the last 40 years and yet obesity levels are at an all time high. We were told to avoid salt, fat, etc for years and now we are being told that dietary science was all wrong. This "large majority" of scientists does not sway me. I have an MSc and have published in a peer reviewed journal. This makes me an expert on nothing but the ability to read scientific journals myself and weigh whether the level of evidence of any given article is worth more then the paper it is written on. I hate to break it to you but most of environmental science just like the nutritional science before it are so poorly constructed and make multitudes of assumptions that have just not been proven.brianlux said:
A large majority of published scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. To argue that is to argue with many well qualified people who study this sort of thing. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ or NOAA's climate change related pages http://www.noaa.gov/ and read some of the articles. Many are rather technical, but you'll get an overall clear view that these people know what their talking about and rarely if ever will you find anyone suggesting that human activity is not the cause of our current climate change. Yes, in the past climate change has occurred outside of human influence but we are talking about the current changes that are now clearly understood to be anthropogenic in nature.BS44325 said:
Sure but nobody would argue that climate change is occurring. The climate has always gone through changes since the beginning of time. It is clearly changing now. The question is why? How much is due to man's actions as opposed to the thousands of known and unknown variables that we cannot even control? Current science is not sensitive enough to separate and measure these variables.rgambs said:
Of course, direct causes are tough, but decades of weather patterns adds up to climate...now climate change??BS44325 said:
And that may all be true... Science wouldn't argue with a drought or the levels of Lake Mead because it is measurable and verifiable. Science would argue with what might be the direct cause of the drought and/or water levels.rgambs said:
Like 16 years of drought out West drawing Lake Mead to it's lowest level ever.BS44325 said:Weather isn't climate until it is
I know that's not what you meant but it's literally true lol
Soon Hoover Dam won't generate power anymore and the Southwest is going to be up a creek without a creek.
Sort of hard to argue that the West and Southwest are changing, they are areas that shouldn't have been inhabited so heavily to begin with!
In the near future when the earth is a different place our grandchildren are going to look back and say 'They fucking knew and they did nothing.'0 -
No. We don't know it as fact. We know how these gases behave in a vacuum but the earth is not a vacuum. Science requires the control of independent variables to determine fact. We cannot control for many variables and we actually don't even know all the variables at play. Conclusions are being drawn beyond the scope of what science has actually measured.rgambs said:
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!BS44325 said:
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.rgambs said:I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation.
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.0 -
We have studied the greenhouse gas effect at length, not just in a vacuum, I don't know where you get that idea...BS44325 said:
No. We don't know it as fact. We know how these gases behave in a vacuum but the earth is not a vacuum. Science requires the control of independent variables to determine fact. We cannot control for many variables and we actually don't even know all the variables at play. Conclusions are being drawn beyond the scope of what science has actually measured.rgambs said:
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!BS44325 said:
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.rgambs said:I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation.
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
You are equivocating to confirm your own bias, we don't know all the variables at play when it comes to gravity or evolution either, but we know for certain that both exist and have quantifiable impacts on the human scale. Greenhouse gas warming is just as proven as either of those.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
No it is not just as proven as those two. Greenhouse gas warming has only been proven in a vacuum. Earth's climate is maintained and/or changed by a multitude of variables including human activity. How these variables interplay in addition to the earth's ability to "cope" and or modulate it's climate in the face of changes to these variables is what we do not know. I do not know and you do not know. Do not make claims as to what we know. Those claims are just conjecture.rgambs said:
We have studied the greenhouse gas effect at length, not just in a vacuum, I don't know where you get that idea...BS44325 said:
No. We don't know it as fact. We know how these gases behave in a vacuum but the earth is not a vacuum. Science requires the control of independent variables to determine fact. We cannot control for many variables and we actually don't even know all the variables at play. Conclusions are being drawn beyond the scope of what science has actually measured.rgambs said:
We do know it is fact. If there is doubt, the doubters are lunatics. Certainly they are not Venutians!BS44325 said:
And there is the argument because we don't KNOW this without a doubt. There is plenty of doubt. Plus even if it were verifiably true the concept of rate is extremely important. So is the concept of biofeedback mechanisms that allow the earth to absorb these naturally occurring gases and dealing with them in its own way. Science studies all these things and we simply do not have all these answers.rgambs said:I agree, but when it comes down to it, that is equivocation.
We KNOW without a doubt that CO2, methane, and other gases create planetary warming, arguing over the rate is like dickering over how much poison to put in your water.
You are equivocating to confirm your own bias, we don't know all the variables at play when it comes to gravity or evolution either, but we know for certain that both exist and have quantifiable impacts on the human scale. Greenhouse gas warming is just as proven as either of those.0 -
This article on the impact of breakfast illustrates how complicated proper scientific study is...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/upshot/sorry-theres-nothing-magical-about-breakfast.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0&referer=http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
If breakfast is this challenging imagine how difficult it is to control the variables within climate science.0 -
^^^
Were you having breakfast when you made your avatar?0 -
Same thing here. Don't care anymore. Nothing here changes anything. And here too I have become a sarcastic asshole. Fuck that. I'm getting the old me back and done with trying to make a difference here. Not that I ever really even expected to. One can hope, right? Haha. Fuck it."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
Ha. Like the writer of the article I actually don't eat breakfast. That avatar was the exception. That was taken the day after the last PJ Vancouver show. Felt like eating before making the road trip to seattle.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:^^^
Were you having breakfast when you made your avatar?0 -
I think climate change is a much more accurate description of what's happening, especially since climate is more than just temperature. "Global warming" can be a pretty misleading term IMO - one that has lead to some of the denial, actually.brianlux said:For any of you who are among the 30% of Americans (30%!!... only in America) who do not believe in global warming (can we stop wussing out by calling it "climate change?"):
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-recordPost edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help