PDA

View Full Version : It's not the time to discuss climate change



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 10:08am,
Aww, aren't you all cute, with your associating the word "skeptic," with "denier."

In this case it fits though. The only people who debate the established science on climate change are fucking retards who argue for the use of coal. It absolutely is the same as believing in CHI or flat earth. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get scientists to agree on something?? And yet an overwhelming majority of them agree on climate change. Being a "skeptic" over this is the same as being a "skeptic" over the shape of the planet. In other words it's fucking retarded.

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 10:10am,
Being Skeptical means you require a level of evidence. What you have been describing is something different and I don't know what the hell it is. What level of evidence do you need?

I really think he has to be trolling, there's just no way he could actually be this stupid.

BKR
10/20/2017 10:29am,
Anybody who denies that the earth's climate has changed over the 4.5 billion years or so it has existed is of course wrong.

Questioning the predictive output of complex climate models (I've posted some stuff that scratches the surface of how complex they are, and the different kinds) is not delusional, nor is it "denying" anything.

I've worked with complex models in geological sciences, specifically reservoir simulations for oil and gas production. By no means an expert, however, I know enough to be cautious about treating output of complex models of any sort as gospel.

The probabilistic nature of the output of such models needs to be understood. They don't give cut-and-dry answers, but a range of possibility of outcomes...a probability distribution function, for say, temperature versus time, that is dependent upon a lot of variables and settings in the model, which themselves are probabilistic in nature.

I'm not good enough at complex stochastic modeling, nor "climate science" in general, to be able to pick the models apart, however, I know enough to be "skeptical", especially of cut-and-dry reporting of seemingly hard numbers and predictions.

Situation reminds me of presenting results of reservoir and other modeling to non-technical management to secure funding for drilling well in O&G exploration/production, or a program of drilling. A team of scientists and engineers (really a false dichotomy) would have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to present probabilistic results to people who were essentially bean-counters.

I've got no heartburn about moving to cleaner energy sources over time, regardless of climate change, man-made or otherwise (although staving off an ice age is not such a bad idea, would be way worse than global warming).

We just have to be reasonable about it, not draconian. Draconian won't do any substantial more good anyway, at this point, if you believe the models (and the doom and gloom that a lot of their proponents are espousing) especially considering economic and societal costs.

If model predictions manifest in the predicted ranges of possibility, it's going to be tough anyway.

BackFistMonkey
10/20/2017 10:41am,
"The US government keeps spectacularly underestimating solar energy installation... by 4,813%"

https://qz.com/1103874/the-us-government-underestimated-solar-energy-installation-in-the-us-by-4813-along-with-renewable-wind-and-solar-generation/

It looks kinda like the only Draconian movements are the ones attempts to slow renewable growth and research by planning on cutting incentives and hiding data and placing deniers in positions of Authority.( E.P.A. Scrubs Climate Change Website of ‘Climate Change’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/climate/epa-climate-change.html), this is todays update not all the other data removal in the last 9 months. )

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 11:45am,
Anybody who denies that the earth's climate has changed over the 4.5 billion years or so it has existed is of course wrong.

Questioning the predictive output of complex climate models (I've posted some stuff that scratches the surface of how complex they are, and the different kinds) is not delusional, nor is it "denying" anything.

I've worked with complex models in geological sciences, specifically reservoir simulations for oil and gas production. By no means an expert, however, I know enough to be cautious about treating output of complex models of any sort as gospel.

The probabilistic nature of the output of such models needs to be understood. They don't give cut-and-dry answers, but a range of possibility of outcomes...a probability distribution function, for say, temperature versus time, that is dependent upon a lot of variables and settings in the model, which themselves are probabilistic in nature.

I'm not good enough at complex stochastic modeling, nor "climate science" in general, to be able to pick the models apart, however, I know enough to be "skeptical", especially of cut-and-dry reporting of seemingly hard numbers and predictions.

Situation reminds me of presenting results of reservoir and other modeling to non-technical management to secure funding for drilling well in O&G exploration/production, or a program of drilling. A team of scientists and engineers (really a false dichotomy) would have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to present probabilistic results to people who were essentially bean-counters.

I've got no heartburn about moving to cleaner energy sources over time, regardless of climate change, man-made or otherwise (although staving off an ice age is not such a bad idea, would be way worse than global warming).

We just have to be reasonable about it, not draconian. Draconian won't do any substantial more good anyway, at this point, if you believe the models (and the doom and gloom that a lot of their proponents are espousing) especially considering economic and societal costs.

If model predictions manifest in the predicted ranges of possibility, it's going to be tough anyway.

Well this is just one hell of a steaming pile of fecal matter. Did you write this or did someone from the Koch brothers department of propaganda?? What part of the majority of scientists on earth is stumping you??

Tell you what, I have a simple scientific test you can perform : start your fireplace and then close the flue. Let me know how long it takes you to "believe" in the climate change of your living room.

BKR
10/20/2017 11:47am,
"The US government keeps spectacularly underestimating solar energy installation... by 4,813%"

https://qz.com/1103874/the-us-government-underestimated-solar-energy-installation-in-the-us-by-4813-along-with-renewable-wind-and-solar-generation/

It looks kinda like the only Draconian movements are the ones attempts to slow renewable growth and research by planning on cutting incentives and hiding data and placing deniers in positions of Authority.( E.P.A. Scrubs Climate Change Website of ‘Climate Change’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/climate/epa-climate-change.html), this is todays update not all the other data removal in the last 9 months. )

I don't agree with scubbing/hiding data from the public, for sure. However, there is plenty of ideas/support outside of government for draconian measures to cut CO2 emissions. Of course, draconian is in the eye of the beholder.

Putting "deniers" in authority is not a good idea either, but neither is putting in "true believers".

BKR
10/20/2017 11:54am,
Well this is just one hell of a steaming pile of fecal matter. Did you write this or did someone from the Koch brothers department of propaganda?? What part of the majority of scientists on earth is stumping you??

Tell you what, I have a simple scientific test you can perform : start your fireplace and then close the flue. Let me know how long it takes you to "believe" in the climate change of your living room.

You need a good dose of reading comprehension in your morning coffee.

submessenger
10/20/2017 11:59am,
You need a good dose of reading comprehension in your morning coffee.

He probably thought I wrote it, so didn't bother to read it.

BKR
10/20/2017 12:03pm,
He probably thought I wrote it, so didn't bother to read it.

He started the thread, I suppose he can post in the manner he desires.

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 12:04pm,
He probably thought I wrote it, so didn't bother to read it.

I read your posts all the time, usually so I don't forget how to facepalm.

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 12:05pm,
You need a good dose of reading comprehension in your morning coffee.

I comprehend your bullshit just fine, I just disapprove of the smell.

hungryjoe
10/20/2017 12:08pm,
Well this is just one hell of a steaming pile of fecal matter. Did you write this or did someone from the Koch brothers department of propaganda?? What part of the majority of scientists on earth is stumping you?? Tell you what, I have a simple scientific test you can perform : start your fireplace and then close the flue. Let me know how long it takes you to "believe" in the climate change of your living room.Odd. I thought BKR's post on the complexity of simulations and range of results was good. You ever notice the weatherman gives variations of hurricane tracking, based on different models? Complex modeling for sure but still different tracks possible. Why? Variables I'd guess, of which there's no end when modeling something as complex as climate change.

BKR
10/20/2017 12:08pm,
Go ahead and dig in and find all the fake news, guys...
https://www.eia.gov/renewable/

Incredible resources on that website, truly amazing.

BKR
10/20/2017 12:09pm,
I comprehend your bullshit just fine, I just disapprove of the smell.

Point out the bullshit, so we can discuss.

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 12:27pm,
Odd. I thought BKR's post on the complexity of simulations and range of results was good. You ever notice the weatherman gives variations of hurricane tracking, based on different models? Complex modeling for sure but still different tracks possible. Why? Variables I'd guess, of which there's no end when modeling something as complex as climate change.

You're basically on board with the "burn baby burn" agenda so no surprise that you agree with him.

Bneterasedmynam
10/20/2017 12:30pm,
Point out the bullshit, so we can discuss.

Your entire post is bullshit designed to cast doubt on human involved climate change. It's the classic page one excuse for climate denial. "Well it's a complex issue so let's just burn coal". It's bullshit like your post that makes me compare you guys to flat earthers.