it spawned a whole group of people popping up on CNN...so called scientists, agreeing with him. You speak of scientists as if they are the be all end all. Sorry bud, ain't buying it.Spark wrote:
right, but how many papers did he have published? nada. the guy isn't a scientist, he's a politician.11 Bravo wrote:
Worked for Al GoreSpark wrote:
i know of people who've tried that - guess where they've gone.
why are we talking about him anyway.
It had global human effects, and yes they were considerably greater than what our current warming period is having. I propose that there are a few reasons for this.
1. Cold is much more difficult to deal with than hot. It's much easier for a crop to fail due to frost than it is due to heat. Much easier to freeze to death than die of heatstroke.
2. We are much better placed globally to deal with those kind of issues. If there's a cold snap in a particularly critical agricultural region of Europe in the 14th century there's jackall you can do about it. A cold snap today would not have similar affects - you can import food, we have better technology and methodology to deal with such things.
Again. one degree change over several centuries, or a one degree change in one - which is more statistically severe?
in any case... who would you rather believe on a scientific issue? Scientists? Or rather economists, shock jocks or politicians?
1. Cold is much more difficult to deal with than hot. It's much easier for a crop to fail due to frost than it is due to heat. Much easier to freeze to death than die of heatstroke.
2. We are much better placed globally to deal with those kind of issues. If there's a cold snap in a particularly critical agricultural region of Europe in the 14th century there's jackall you can do about it. A cold snap today would not have similar affects - you can import food, we have better technology and methodology to deal with such things.
Again. one degree change over several centuries, or a one degree change in one - which is more statistically severe?
of course they can agree with him, how is that relevant? no scientist takes soundbites on cnn over actual cited peer reviewed research.11 Bravo wrote:
it spawned a whole group of people popping up on CNN...so called scientists, agreeing with him. You speak of scientists as if they are the be all end all. Sorry bud, ain't buying it.Spark wrote:
right, but how many papers did he have published? nada. the guy isn't a scientist, he's a politician.11 Bravo wrote:
Worked for Al Gore
why are we talking about him anyway.
in any case... who would you rather believe on a scientific issue? Scientists? Or rather economists, shock jocks or politicians?
Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 06:31:27)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
depends on who the scientist earns his salary from.
tbh, the majority of scientists are reputable.11 Bravo wrote:
depends on who the scientist earns his salary from.
is this the whole conspiracy argument again
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
yes...global warmingSpark wrote:
is this the whole conspiracy argument again
righteo.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Already asked if there has been a several degree change in a century and you said no. So which is it, is there a several degree change or not?Spark wrote:
It had global human effects, and yes they were considerably greater than what our current warming period is having. I propose that there are a few reasons for this.
1. Cold is much more difficult to deal with than hot. It's much easier for a crop to fail due to frost than it is due to heat. Much easier to freeze to death than die of heatstroke.
2. We are much better placed globally to deal with those kind of issues. If there's a cold snap in a particularly critical agricultural region of Europe in the 14th century there's jackall you can do about it. A cold snap today would not have similar affects - you can import food, we have better technology and methodology to deal with such things.
Again. one degree change over several centuries, or a one degree change in one - which is more statistically severe?
no, as i said... the several-degree change was referring to the predicted change over the next century.lowing wrote:
Already asked if there has been a several degree change in a century and you said no. So which is it, is there a several degree change or not?Spark wrote:
It had global human effects, and yes they were considerably greater than what our current warming period is having. I propose that there are a few reasons for this.
1. Cold is much more difficult to deal with than hot. It's much easier for a crop to fail due to frost than it is due to heat. Much easier to freeze to death than die of heatstroke.
2. We are much better placed globally to deal with those kind of issues. If there's a cold snap in a particularly critical agricultural region of Europe in the 14th century there's jackall you can do about it. A cold snap today would not have similar affects - you can import food, we have better technology and methodology to deal with such things.
Again. one degree change over several centuries, or a one degree change in one - which is more statistically severe?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Ok and my response to that was, science can even predict the weather for the weekend without getting it wrong sometimes. Why are you so trusting of how they predict what happens 100 years from now? Especially when they have govt. research money on the line. Imagine how much money they would loose if they said there were no problems.Spark wrote:
no, as i said... the several-degree change was referring to the predicted change over the next century.lowing wrote:
Already asked if there has been a several degree change in a century and you said no. So which is it, is there a several degree change or not?Spark wrote:
It had global human effects, and yes they were considerably greater than what our current warming period is having. I propose that there are a few reasons for this.
1. Cold is much more difficult to deal with than hot. It's much easier for a crop to fail due to frost than it is due to heat. Much easier to freeze to death than die of heatstroke.
2. We are much better placed globally to deal with those kind of issues. If there's a cold snap in a particularly critical agricultural region of Europe in the 14th century there's jackall you can do about it. A cold snap today would not have similar affects - you can import food, we have better technology and methodology to deal with such things.
Again. one degree change over several centuries, or a one degree change in one - which is more statistically severe?
Sigh. The conspiracy argument again.lowing wrote:
Ok and my response to that was, science can even predict the weather for the weekend without getting it wrong sometimes. Why are you so trusting of how they predict what happens 100 years from now? Especially when they have govt. research money on the line. Imagine how much money they would loose if they said there were no problems.Spark wrote:
no, as i said... the several-degree change was referring to the predicted change over the next century.lowing wrote:
Already asked if there has been a several degree change in a century and you said no. So which is it, is there a several degree change or not?
I don't "trust" them. I look at their results, their methods and their data. If they match to me then I say their models are reasonable. If someone comes up with a better, more watertight model which predicts something different I'll take a serious look but otherwise...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
but again their models, can't predict without a doubt what will happen the damn day after tomorrow with the weather. and what they are presenting is no more damning than what has already happened when man wasn't the reason.Spark wrote:
Sigh. The conspiracy argument again.lowing wrote:
Ok and my response to that was, science can even predict the weather for the weekend without getting it wrong sometimes. Why are you so trusting of how they predict what happens 100 years from now? Especially when they have govt. research money on the line. Imagine how much money they would loose if they said there were no problems.Spark wrote:
no, as i said... the several-degree change was referring to the predicted change over the next century.
I don't "trust" them. I look at their results, their methods and their data. If they match to me then I say their models are reasonable. If someone comes up with a better, more watertight model which predicts something different I'll take a serious look but otherwise...
oh, it is. it very much is.lowing wrote:
but again their models, can't predict without a doubt what will happen the damn day after tomorrow with the weather. and what they are presenting is no more damning than what has already happened when man wasn't the reason.Spark wrote:
Sigh. The conspiracy argument again.lowing wrote:
Ok and my response to that was, science can even predict the weather for the weekend without getting it wrong sometimes. Why are you so trusting of how they predict what happens 100 years from now? Especially when they have govt. research money on the line. Imagine how much money they would loose if they said there were no problems.
I don't "trust" them. I look at their results, their methods and their data. If they match to me then I say their models are reasonable. If someone comes up with a better, more watertight model which predicts something different I'll take a serious look but otherwise...
and for the first one - you quite sure about that? plus, weather is not the same as climate.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Scientists and meteorologists are actually two different professions lowing ... although they both rely on predictions and forecasts ... a scientific theory however is way more complex than a weather forecast for the weekend ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Its the difference between macro and micro prediction.lowing wrote:
but again their models, can't predict without a doubt what will happen the damn day after tomorrow with the weather. and what they are presenting is no more damning than what has already happened when man wasn't the reason.
Fact is CO2 is being spewed into the atmosphere at a higher rate than the planet has ever seen, no-one really knows the consequences for sure but consequences there will be in terms of climate change.
Fuck Israel
I don't get why people talk about "Science" as a general group like that, ok but let's do things your way. If you can't trust "Science" then who are you going to trust? What else is there that's as reputable as the methods outside of "Science"
aint weather a byproduct of climate?
the climate scientists who make over 6 figures scaring people...Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why people talk about "Science" as a general group like that, ok but let's do things your way. If you can't trust "Science" then who are you going to trust? What else is there that's as reputable as the methods outside of "Science"
They are bound together that's for sure ...11 Bravo wrote:
aint weather a byproduct of climate?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
So all the people who talk about climate change are the rich scientists with alternative agendas. All the people who are against it are the poor scientists who are genuine, is that how you see it?11 Bravo wrote:
the climate scientists who make over 6 figures scaring people...Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why people talk about "Science" as a general group like that, ok but let's do things your way. If you can't trust "Science" then who are you going to trust? What else is there that's as reputable as the methods outside of "Science"
Weather, think of it as trying to predict, if you have a pan of water on the stove, precisely where the bubbles will form and exactly the sequence in which the bubbles will lift off and float to the surface.11 Bravo wrote:
aint weather a byproduct of climate?
Climate, is the water in the pan going to get warm? What temperature will it reach?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-26 08:06:17)
Fuck Israel
212 F or 100 CDilbert_X wrote:
What temperature will it reach?
It's a characteristic of all complex systems - in fact, any physical system (which is modelled by diff eq's which this one is) - i can tell you bucketloads about its general characteristics and behaviour but I have no clue about specifics.Varegg wrote:
Scientists and meteorologists are actually two different professions lowing ... although they both rely on predictions and forecasts ... a scientific theory however is way more complex than a weather forecast for the weekend ...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
both sides are bollocks. both sides have financial gain either way.Mekstizzle wrote:
So all the people who talk about climate change are the rich scientists with alternative agendas. All the people who are against it are the poor scientists who are genuine, is that how you see it?11 Bravo wrote:
the climate scientists who make over 6 figures scaring people...Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't get why people talk about "Science" as a general group like that, ok but let's do things your way. If you can't trust "Science" then who are you going to trust? What else is there that's as reputable as the methods outside of "Science"
Not necessarily.burnzz wrote:
212 F or 100 CDilbert_X wrote:
What temperature will it reach?
Fuck Israel