218358 Bullies, 7117 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 61 to 70 of 343
Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 34567 89101117 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 12:56pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    See, the difference there? That's a person challenging orthodoxy inclusively, with full acknowledgement of the shortcomings in his argument.
    There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.
  2. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,543

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 1:04pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You are starting to type big walls of text without your usual love of the written word or craftsmanship, John.

    I can certainly argue in a much more detailed way, but thus far, you haven't exactly been presenting sophisticated, well-researched arguments.

    The reason I respond to these threads is that very questionable science is being presented as something indisputable as a justification for the imposition of enormous levels of regressive taxation.

    Yes, that does concern me. I take my hat off to the modern Bernays who managed to sell Wall Street's carbon trading schemes, nuclear industry PR and an enormous shift from progressive to regressive taxation as a liberal agenda.

    I still don't understand why you would, after starting this thread, think that only the people who disagree with you are acting on a 'religous impulse'. It's a fairly passive-aggressive trait, now I think about it.

    'Hey guys look this is cool don't question me, you fanatic!'.
    Last edited by Cullion; 6/18/2011 1:36pm at .
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  3. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 2:10pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    No, you misunderstand, I think climate change denial is actually tied to religion in the US. I'm not saying it's "like" the religious right, I literally think they are affiliated, through the grassroots right movements in the redder states.

    Part and parcel with the ID movement, the the religious textbook movement, etc. Perhaps not as a bullet point on some conspiracy's agenda per se, but I think they are literally affiliated, through an enemy-of-my-enemy policy if nothing else, and that they represent an arm of the creep of junk science in American discourse.

    Now, I realize you're an unhappy britton who rankles every day under the bleeding heart EU socialist empire, I get that, so your perspective on the social constructions of these movements may be different.

    But as far as my arguments, my argument is and remains: The majority of the scientific community does believe in climate change. Of those believers, a further majority believes human activity contributes to the phenomena. The only real argument within science is to what degree and to what end.

    I look at the models being used, the methods being used, and I do not disagree. I look at supposed "controversies" like the CRU breaking and find them to be, well, jokes. CRU is the definition of a tempest in a tea kettle.

    I agree there are problems with working purely from limited historical data. Historical data can really only hint that warming may be occurring - it can't tell us if the warming is natural, partially, or wholly man-made, etc.

    But climate change theory isn't actually based on historical data alone. That's a popular misconception.

    Possible climate change consequences are also not limited to warming - storm vigor is a second, and ocean acidity is another, especially if it acted to compound the severe damage we do to world's fisheries every year.
    There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.
  4. The Juggernoob is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    1,578

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 2:26pm


     Style: 'Grapplin'

    -1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Ocean acidity is secondary to desalinisation in terms of importance.
    There is no debate, humanity is contributing to a change in the global climate.
    The very simple but unfortunate stickler, is that we're currently in an Inter-glacial period, and we're due another vast climatic shift if Holocene records hold true. For some peope , this information is enough to cling to in the face of overwhelming scientific knowledge.

    More to the point, no matter how many scientists get discredited, you cannot break this chain of logic. The following, by the way is a tiny fraction of the vastly complicated system of global climatic and evironmental change. C02 levels are at record highs, Mean summer temeperatures are also rather high. In the past 100 years we have seen a vast decline in Sea Ice. Because of a nifty little bit of physics called albedo, we now have a less reflective surface, and are therefore absorbing more heat, more heat melts more Ice, the crunch to this very small part of the systems, is that we may have already reached the point of no return.

    Dont fool yourself into believing that GW and CC denial is anything more than political posturing to avoid having to spend money/ acknowledge the issue. Proposals have been put forward, ranging from chemical to engineering solutions. The stickler? All of these solutions would require vast financial co-operation between nations. Politicians are happy to ignore it, they'll be dead by the time the rest of world realises science does'nt lie.
  5. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,543

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 2:39pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCache View Post
    No, you misunderstand, I think climate change denial is actually tied to religion in the US. I'm not saying it's "like" the religious right, I literally think they are affiliated, through the grassroots right movements in the redder states.

    Part and parcel with the ID movement, the the religious textbook movement, etc. Perhaps not as a bullet point on some conspiracy's agenda per se, but I think they are literally affiliated, through an enemy-of-my-enemy policy if nothing else, and that they represent an arm of the creep of junk science in American discourse.
    I'm neither a Christian nor an American. You are tilting at a windmill. I don't care how frustrated you are with your own culture's Jerry Falwell tendency, you are complaining to the wrong department.

    But as far as my arguments, my argument is and remains: The majority of the scientific community does believe in climate change. Of those believers, a further majority believes human activity contributes to the phenomena. The only real argument within science is to what degree and to what end.
    Science isn't a democracy. I'm simply ahead of the curve.

    I look at the models being used, the methods being used, and I do not disagree.
    I contend you simply don't understand the models and methods, very well. Look at your attempt to construct a falsifiable hypothesis a few posts ago.

    You cited increase in temperature without an increase in radiation from Earth without considering any other cause of the observed phenomena.Were there biological, and geological effects responsible, anthropogenic effects unrelated to carbon emission? (e.g. water vapour, albedo etc..) Do we have enough data to see a statistically significant relationship between the radiation and temperature? are their periods where the irradiation and temperature move in different directions that may suggest other factors are at play? How much data do we have, is it sufficient to establish a real correlation, or could it simply be noise ?

    You, like many other proponents of this scare story, are very keen on taking data collected over time periods so brief to be statistically irrelevant in a geological context and extrapolating linear trends from them. You constantly use data in a way that asserts causation when there aren't even good statistical grounds for asserting correlation.

    I look at supposed "controversies" like the CRU breaking and find them to be, well, jokes. CRU is the definition of a tempest in a tea kettle.
    If the CRU emails are a 'storm in a teacup', then the whole AGW debate is a storm in a teacup. If you're prepared to dismiss falsification of results by luminaries in the field, then there's no point trying to have a scientific debate with you.

    But climate change theory isn't actually based on historical data alone. That's a popular misconception.
    You cannot form a coherent hypothesis about the human effect on climate without a solid understanding of the pre-human climate. You'll draw all kinds of false correlations otherwise, because the increase in human CO2 emissions are certainly not the only thing that's been changing on Earth over the last couple of hundred years. You need a clear picture over much longer timescales to examine the question.

    Possible climate change consequences are also not limited to warming - storm vigor is a second, and ocean acidity is another, especially if it acted to compound the severe damage we do to world's fisheries every year.
    Please, take this to sociocide. This has been done to death. Yeah, I'm talking about Ocean acidification.

    Whenever anybody who supports this hypothesis says 'there is no debate', it just makes them sound stupid.
    Last edited by Cullion; 6/18/2011 2:49pm at .
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  6. The Juggernoob is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    1,578

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 3:08pm


     Style: 'Grapplin'

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I'm neither a Christian nor an American. You are tilting at a windmill. I don't care how frustrated you are with your own culture's Jerry Falwell tendency, you are complaining to the wrong department.



    Science isn't a democracy. I'm simply ahead of the curve.



    I contend you simply don't understand the models and methods, very well. Look at your attempt to construct a falsifiable hypothesis a few posts ago.

    You cited increase in temperature without an increase in radiation from Earth without considering any other cause of the observed phenomena.Were there biological, and geological effects responsible, anthropogenic effects unrelated to carbon emission? (e.g. water vapour, albedo etc..) Do we have enough data to see a statistically significant relationship between the radiation and temperature? are their periods where the irradiation and temperature move in different directions that may suggest other factors are at play? How much data do we have, is it sufficient to establish a real correlation, or could it simply be noise ?

    You, like many other proponents of this scare story, are very keen on taking data collected over time periods so brief to be statistically irrelevant in a geological context and extrapolating linear trends from them. You constantly use data in a way that asserts causation when there aren't even good statistical grounds for asserting correlation.



    If the CRU emails are a 'storm in a teacup', then the whole AGW debate is a storm in a teacup. If you're prepared to dismiss falsification of results by luminaries in the field, then there's no point trying to have a scientific debate with you.



    You cannot form a coherent hypothesis about the human effect on climate without a solid understanding of the pre-human climate. You'll draw all kinds of false correlations otherwise, because the increase in human CO2 emissions are certainly not the only thing that's been changing on Earth over the last couple of hundred years. You need a clear picture over much longer timescales to examine the question.



    Please, take this to sociocide. This has been done to death. Yeah, I'm talking about Ocean acidification.

    Whenever anybody who supports this hypothesis says 'there is no debate', it just makes them sound stupid.
    Again, anyone here in academia that has experience with the topic?
  7. The Juggernoob is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    1,578

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 3:12pm


     Style: 'Grapplin'

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    That was'nt a personal dig at you Cullion, just wondering how much of this argument is informed or not. People seem to have a far better grasp of this than most.
  8. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 3:39pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Seriously, cullion, if you can't get that other people are allowed to talk about this vis a vis their context, or that experiments with complex systems are, well, complicated, I don't know what to tell you.

    You asked for a falsifiable about AGW and were given several possibles - then you say, "but..oh...yeah? Well we don't know FOR SURE that they were caused by AGW ...you message board posters don't know the REAL science"

    You're reducing this to uh-huh/nuh-uh games with climate models. Climate models in use survive peer review - the standard this board crows about when the topic at hand is something unimportant like chi...so I guess I need to hear more than "I just don't like the models"

    You're not the center of the universe, princess, and I can talk about what's going on in my country without "tilting at windmills" because it's not customized to you.

    Maybe if you didn't make yourself so central these threads wouldn't turn into you vs the world?

    You aren't an academic in this field, either, don't paint yourself as Galileo. The fact that the crowd can be wrong sometimes does not translate into a fact that iconclasts are therefore likely to be right - the phrase is "the exception proves the rule."
  9. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 3:53pm

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I don't really feel the CRU people "falsified a conclusion" - they corrected some data. By patching over their model's margin of error with historical data.

    Likewise, It's inexplicable to me that if I post something like, "It appears the atmosphere is trapping energy" without even linking to anything, you're right on the "piss poor study/piss poor methods/piss poor reasoning/pure conjecture" model. It was a sketch in brief of a falsifiable hypothesis - you asked me for the hypothesis, not the data set of subsequent experimentation. Atmospheric capture IS a testable supporting climate change. Testable means testable, not forgone. You asked for a testable, I gave you one, it's fine if that leads to further discussion, but don't act like the need to eliminate other possible causes means that it's something that doesn't pertain to AGW

    The mere need for diligence and fact checking doesn't ruin the hypothesis experimentally.

    And fwiw, I didn't post them, someone else did - but I do agree that atmospheric retention and unique nocturnal heating are significant signs of greenhouse phenomenon. I would appreciate, in particular, if you would tell why you feel surface albedo might account for atmospheric capture.
  10. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,543

    Posted On:
    6/18/2011 3:53pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Of course people are allowed to talk about this, I just don't think it's reasonable to lump me in with people who think dinosaur bones are some kind of trick just because I don't agree with the liberal minority.

    The peer review culture of this field has become warped and is no longer trustworthy.
    Last edited by Cullion; 6/18/2011 3:59pm at .
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
Page 7 of 35 FirstFirst ... 34567 89101117 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.