|
Post by magellan on Jun 14, 2010 0:13:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 14, 2010 0:24:01 GMT
Probably not with government intent on killing business and jobs while increasing taxes and control over individuals. The lever is AGW and CO2, forget the science. This is fascism latest form.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 14, 2010 0:40:49 GMT
The question is important. I think another way to ask it is this: Will believers accept that AGW has in fact been falsified for quite sometime? Another way to ask the question could be: Will believers accept the implications of the non-falsifiable nature of AGW? And before the believers jump in, 'AGW' in this context refers to the catastrophic climate claims of the AGW movement.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2010 0:42:40 GMT
Well the JFK conspiracy theory is still alive after 42 years and one has to wonder if the 911 conspiracy theory will surpass it. And of course there is still Hangar 84 now going on 64 years. www.alienresistance.org/hangar84.htmAnd get this they are still raising money with it!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jun 14, 2010 0:53:27 GMT
Well the JFK conspiracy theory is still alive after 42 years and one has to wonder if the 911 conspiracy theory will surpass it. And of course there is still Hangar 84 now going on 64 years. www.alienresistance.org/hangar84.htmAnd get this they are still raising money with it!!!!!!!! The similarities between ufoology and CAGW are striking.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 14, 2010 1:11:29 GMT
its more like a religion. Yeah, there doesn't appear to be any way of falsifying it (it TRULY is not a science at this point). The believers assume that there will be substantial warming no matter what and that even if it cooled...it would just mean we'd entered the ice age and the warming had offset the bitter cold.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jun 14, 2010 15:45:33 GMT
While most "conspiracy theories" are equivalent to the old time "medicine man's" spiel; hypnotic but unfounded; the JFK "conspiracy" at least has quite a number of unanswered questions. As well as some serious doubt about the ability of a left handed man with a left master eye firing a "right handed man's rifle" with a broken sight at a small moving target and hit that target three times out of three. Particularly when that man's messmates described him as "Barely able to hit the side of a barn from the inside."
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 14, 2010 15:50:57 GMT
While most "conspiracy theories" are equivalent to the old time "medicine man's" spiel; hypnotic but unfounded; the JFK "conspiracy" at least has quite a number of unanswered questions. As well as some serious doubt about the ability of a left handed man with a left master eye firing a "right handed man's rifle" with a broken sight at a small moving target and hit that target three times out of three. Particularly when that man's messmates described him as "Barely able to hit the side of a barn from the inside." Stranger Watch the movie Dark Legacy. It will blow you away.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 14, 2010 16:24:32 GMT
Courtesy: xkcd.com
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 14, 2010 21:24:47 GMT
I'll explain the potential catastrophe from the AGW perspective. AGW is not saying there will be a catastrophe, all AGW is saying is that humans are causing the earth to warm.
It's the ramifications of that which have the risk of catastrophe as the worse case scenario.
A number of greenhouse gases are rising due to human activity and will affect the energy balance of Earth's climate invoking a significant change to compensate. Part of that change will be significant warming, but that's not going to be the only change. There will be knock on effects on various interconnected systems in the world. For example precipitation patterns, ice sheets, sea ice, habitat ranges of species, and probably hundreds more. These in turn will likely have knock on effects on other systems in turn and ultimately on us. The actual effects are largely uncertain and the system is so complex that some effects will probably come out of left field. But risk isn't mitigated by not knowing what will happen.
The reason things like loss of arctic sea ice cover over the summer and fall months are focused on is because these are big imminent changes to the climate with possible large knock on effects on other systems. There's no rule book by which earth has to respond to such a change in a way that maintains the status quo. For all we know an Earth with very little arctic ice cover in summer months has different weather patterns than we have observed to date. The Earth's climate wouldn't care much about moving into a new configuration where western europe became 5C cooler in summer at the expense of a region elsewhere that becomes 5C warmer.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jun 14, 2010 22:37:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jun 14, 2010 22:41:54 GMT
I see NOAA is now saying to pay no attention to temperatures but to the trend. A statement that would have cause my old professor to rant, rave, and spew profanity in several languages. Here's the reference link, second item down: www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.htmlYou cannot establish a trend when the instrumentation has been relocated or the location has changed significantly. However, NOAA says one thing that I might have agreed with, twenty years ago: "Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years? No. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting." Except for the "corn belt," which has had no change in temperatures for some 120 years, this was largely true, in 1990. But since 1990 the timberline has receded from the mountaintops, first frost is earlier, winter temperatures colder, and in general the climate is getting back to what I experienced as a boy. If we cannot yet race cars on a frozen Lake of the Ozarks, the ice behind Bagnell Dam is getting thicker. Wait a while and we will get there. Because climate, like many other things, is generally cyclic. Stranger
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2010 22:50:20 GMT
I'll explain the potential catastrophe from the AGW perspective. AGW is not saying there will be a catastrophe, all AGW is saying is that humans are causing the earth to warm. Socold just pulled a phone number tab! There is an old saying about laying with dogs you are going to get fleas. Usually the best strategy in such a situation is be very careful and sure about what you say. How Dr. Roger Revelle approached it is probably an excellent paradigm to follow if you are worried about AGW as obviously he was. My view its all about labeling. When a scientist works for WWF openly you know it and like a scientist in the employ of the oil industry you know that too. In academia or government when you are being paid with public money it calls for you to honor that and to leave the opinions at home and what you do on your time off you should keep that separate and not use your job credentials at all to promote opinions. And if you are in a highly visible position you shouldn't even think you have time off for that as I can assure you with 100% certainty you don't.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 14, 2010 22:55:34 GMT
But since 1990 the timberline has receded from the mountaintops, first frost is earlier, winter temperatures colder, and in general the climate is getting back to what I experienced as a boy. If we cannot yet race cars on a frozen Lake of the Ozarks, the ice behind Bagnell Dam is getting thicker. Wait a while and we will get there. Because climate, like many other things, is generally cyclic. Stranger Ditto! Koolaid is mostly for kids.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 15, 2010 1:20:11 GMT
I'll explain the potential catastrophe from the AGW perspective. AGW is not saying there will be a catastrophe, all AGW is saying is that humans are causing the earth to warm. It's the ramifications of that which have the risk of catastrophe as the worse case scenario. A number of greenhouse gases are rising due to human activity and will affect the energy balance of Earth's climate invoking a significant change to compensate. Part of that change will be significant warming, but that's not going to be the only change. There will be knock on effects on various interconnected systems in the world. For example precipitation patterns, ice sheets, sea ice, habitat ranges of species, and probably hundreds more. These in turn will likely have knock on effects on other systems in turn and ultimately on us. The actual effects are largely uncertain and the system is so complex that some effects will probably come out of left field. But risk isn't mitigated by not knowing what will happen. The reason things like loss of arctic sea ice cover over the summer and fall months are focused on is because these are big imminent changes to the climate with possible large knock on effects on other systems. There's no rule book by which earth has to respond to such a change in a way that maintains the status quo. For all we know an Earth with very little arctic ice cover in summer months has different weather patterns than we have observed to date. The Earth's climate wouldn't care much about moving into a new configuration where western europe became 5C cooler in summer at the expense of a region elsewhere that becomes 5C warmer. AGW is not saying there will be a catastrophe, all AGW is saying is that humans are causing the earth to warm. It's the ramifications of that which have the risk of catastrophe as the worse case scenario. There's no rule book by which earth has to respond to such a change in a way that maintains the status quo. The actual effects are largely uncertain and the system is so complex .....europe became 5C cooler in summer at the expense of a region elsewhere that becomes 5C warmer. For all we know...... Wow, where does one begin deciphering that tangled jumble of mush. The collated quintessential definition of pseudoscience. No matter how bad AGW "theories" break it goes over warmer's heads like a lead balloon. There is more psychobabble and convolution in those four blurbs of confusion than perhaps anything you've ever posted.
|
|