Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2010-05-26 02:36:46
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Magnitude and speed matter, lowing. One degree in three centuries is not the same as three degrees in one century.

I mean, I just don't see the point of this whole business any more. There is nothing of value to be gained by debating people who refuse to study the science and actually try to find out for themselves rather than relying on tabloids, blogs, and documentaries which are generally, on both sides, pretty crap.
I dunno has the change been 3 degrees in one century?
We're talking about the predicted change obviously. So far I think it's been about 1 degree in about a century...

and if it is all true.

why this is this necessary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/d … ing-fraud/
fucked if i know. do you see me defending them? you get bad egg scientists just like you get bad egg everyone. that does not, however, cast into doubt the rest of the unrelated theoretical predictions behind the theory, nor does it cast into doubt the chemistry, nor does it cast into doubt the models other people were working on. obviously whatever they were working on is trash but the east anglia CRU is not a leading centre in climate research.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 02:53:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Magnitude and speed matter, lowing. One degree in three centuries is not the same as three degrees in one century.

I mean, I just don't see the point of this whole business any more. There is nothing of value to be gained by debating people who refuse to study the science and actually try to find out for themselves rather than relying on tabloids, blogs, and documentaries which are generally, on both sides, pretty crap.
I dunno has the change been 3 degrees in one century?
We're talking about the predicted change obviously. So far I think it's been about 1 degree in about a century...

and if it is all true.

why this is this necessary?

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/d … ing-fraud/
fucked if i know. do you see me defending them? you get bad egg scientists just like you get bad egg everyone. that does not, however, cast into doubt the rest of the unrelated theoretical predictions behind the theory, nor does it cast into doubt the chemistry, nor does it cast into doubt the models other people were working on. obviously whatever they were working on is trash but the east anglia CRU is not a leading centre in climate research.
ok well SPark I am not mathematician but if it is so far, 1 degree in in 1 century, then it is not 3 degrees in one century. As far as predicted change goes. Get back with me when science can tell me if it is gunna rain or not over the weekend accurately and stop giving me chances of rain. I am quite certain there is always a chance of rain.


Well how can you blame skeptics given shit like this. If climate change were true, and the evidence "indisputable" I hardly see a reason to lie about the findings to bolster your already "indisputable" evidence.

Never said you were defending them, I simply was asking a question.
2010-05-26 03:21:07
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

Climate change is true lowing, no doubt about that ...

What the debate is mainly about is if what causes climate change is man made or not, and if man made can we do something about it, as it looks it's highly plausible that it is but that is just a theory ... a very good theory but still just a theory ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-05-26 03:22:43
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Everything in science (maths excepted) is either observation or theory.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 03:29:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Varegg wrote:

Climate change is true lowing, no doubt about that ...

What the debate is mainly about is if what causes climate change is man made or not, and if man made can we do something about it, as it looks it's highly plausible that it is but that is just a theory ... a very good theory but still just a theory ...
my point exactly, climate change is true, it was true BEFORE man, it is true TODAY, and it will be true AFTER man.
2010-05-26 03:32:26
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Climate change is true lowing, no doubt about that ...

What the debate is mainly about is if what causes climate change is man made or not, and if man made can we do something about it, as it looks it's highly plausible that it is but that is just a theory ... a very good theory but still just a theory ...
my point exactly, climate change is true, it was true BEFORE man, it is true TODAY, and it will be true AFTER man.
no one is disputing that, but there are degrees and magnitudes. the point is that we are having an unduly large influence on it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 03:34:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

Everything in science (maths excepted) is either observation or theory.
Nothing is a scientific fact until it goes beyond theory and proven to be a fact.

When you have "scientists" doctoring their findings and presenting them as fact. I will question their agenda. and since the climate is EVER CHANGING, I think it would be more plausible to blame man IF it ever stopped changing?
2010-05-26 03:35:54
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

lowing wrote:

my point exactly, climate change is true, it was true BEFORE man, it is true TODAY, and it will be true AFTER man.
2010-05-26 03:38:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Climate change is true lowing, no doubt about that ...

What the debate is mainly about is if what causes climate change is man made or not, and if man made can we do something about it, as it looks it's highly plausible that it is but that is just a theory ... a very good theory but still just a theory ...
my point exactly, climate change is true, it was true BEFORE man, it is true TODAY, and it will be true AFTER man.
no one is disputing that, but there are degrees and magnitudes. the point is that we are having an unduly large influence on it.
I offered the "little ice age", just a blink of an eye ago relative to earth history. A drastic change to be sure, now how much influence could man have had in its cause or its cessation?

The fact is, if the climate change we are experiencing now was considered good for man, we wouldn't be bitching about how we are influencing the natural order of things on good ole mother earth. However, there is money to be made in crisis, as proven by the fraudulent global warming "facts"
2010-05-26 03:43:35
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Everything in science (maths excepted) is either observation or theory.
Nothing is a scientific fact until it goes beyond theory and proven to be a fact.
in the strictest sense of the word - i.e. incontrovertible - there is nothing in science except mathematical proof (which is generally unrelated to the real world directly) which can be taken as "fact".

Basically everything in science is THEORY.

Classical mechanics - THEORY.
Classical electrodynamics - THEORY.
Newton's Laws of Motion and gravity - THEORY.
Special relativity/general relativity - THEORY.
Quantum mechanics - THEORY.
QED - THEORY.
Plate tectonics - THEORY.

When you have "scientists" doctoring their findings and presenting them as fact. I will question their agenda. and since the climate is EVER CHANGING, I think it would be more plausible to blame man IF it ever stopped changing?
'Cos it changes so fucking slowly on a normal basis that we shouldn't really notice it at all. In any case, we would need to find a mechanism, things don't just happen for no reason.

---

50 000 years is a blink of an eye in earth history, doesn't make it "quick".

Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 03:45:51)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 03:46:15
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio
You know I could manipulate numbers and make fancy graphs to make anything look bad or good, depending on what I wanted to market.
2010-05-26 03:50:43
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

11 Bravo wrote:

You know I could manipulate numbers and make fancy graphs to make anything look bad or good, depending on what I wanted to market.
good luck getting it published in a scientific journal. not quite the same as the daily mail.

Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 03:51:15)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 03:54:59
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

You know I could manipulate numbers and make fancy graphs to make anything look bad or good, depending on what I wanted to market.
good luck getting it published in a scientific journal. not quite the same as the daily mail.
I don't read the daily mail.  And like I said, if my name was Dr. Bravo, I could market whatever I wanted and someone would bite.  I would keep trying till someone did bite.  That way I get paid and name recognition.
2010-05-26 03:56:28
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

11 Bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

You know I could manipulate numbers and make fancy graphs to make anything look bad or good, depending on what I wanted to market.
good luck getting it published in a scientific journal. not quite the same as the daily mail.
I don't read the daily mail.  And like I said, if my name was Dr. Bravo, I could market whatever I wanted and someone would bite.  I would keep trying till someone did bite.  That way I get paid and name recognition.
well, good luck with that.

i know of people who've tried that - guess where they've gone.

Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 03:56:38)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 03:57:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Everything in science (maths excepted) is either observation or theory.
Nothing is a scientific fact until it goes beyond theory and proven to be a fact.
in the strictest sense of the word - i.e. incontrovertible - there is nothing in science except mathematical proof (which is generally unrelated to the real world directly) which can be taken as "fact".

Basically everything in science is THEORY.

Classical mechanics - THEORY.
Classical electrodynamics - THEORY.
Newton's Laws of Motion and gravity - THEORY.
Special relativity/general relativity - THEORY.
Quantum mechanics - THEORY.
QED - THEORY.
Plate tectonics - THEORY.

When you have "scientists" doctoring their findings and presenting them as fact. I will question their agenda. and since the climate is EVER CHANGING, I think it would be more plausible to blame man IF it ever stopped changing?
'Cos it changes so fucking slowly on a normal basis that we shouldn't really notice it at all. In any case, we would need to find a mechanism, things don't just happen for no reason.

---

50 000 years is a blink of an eye in earth history, doesn't make it "quick".
according to the documentary the little ice age lasted 500 years, and I am pretty sure it was noticeable since it was credited with causing the plague and famine. So again, how do you blame man for it? Because precedent has been set, climate change can be that abrupt and drastic, without the influence of man
2010-05-26 03:57:03
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Spark wrote:

i know of people who've tried that - guess where they've gone.
Worked for Al Gore
2010-05-26 03:58:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:


good luck getting it published in a scientific journal. not quite the same as the daily mail.
I don't read the daily mail.  And like I said, if my name was Dr. Bravo, I could market whatever I wanted and someone would bite.  I would keep trying till someone did bite.  That way I get paid and name recognition.
well, good luck with that.

i know of people who've tried that - guess where they've gone.
I hope you are including these "credible scientists" that doctored their evidence to prove global warming due to mans influence.
2010-05-26 04:09:08
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS

11 Bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:

i know of people who've tried that - guess where they've gone.
Worked for Al Gore
right, but how many papers did he have published? nada. the guy isn't a scientist, he's a politician.

why are we talking about him anyway.

I hope you are including these "credible scientists" that doctored their evidence to prove global warming due to mans influence.
how did they prove anything? have you actually seen what their data related to? i don't think you really understand how science works.

i mean, shall i go into the various mathematical dodginess - to the point of incorrectly solving equations - employed by the denier community?

according to the documentary the little ice age lasted 500 years, and I am pretty sure it was noticeable since it was credited with causing the plague and famine.
what famine? and i've never heard the plague being caused by a localised <1C drop in temperature. in fact - which plague are you talking about? i'm almost certain the black death preceded the LIA.

So again, how do you blame man for it? Because precedent has been set, climate change can be that abrupt and drastic, without the influence of man
Drastic? It was less than one degree over 500 years (PS. I have doubts about the 500 year figure as well, there's a lot of debate as to where it actually began).

Last edited by Spark (2010-05-26 04:14:15)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 05:11:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Spark wrote:

i know of people who've tried that - guess where they've gone.
Worked for Al Gore
right, but how many papers did he have published? nada. the guy isn't a scientist, he's a politician.

why are we talking about him anyway.

I hope you are including these "credible scientists" that doctored their evidence to prove global warming due to mans influence.
how did they prove anything? have you actually seen what their data related to? i don't think you really understand how science works.

i mean, shall i go into the various mathematical dodginess - to the point of incorrectly solving equations - employed by the denier community?

according to the documentary the little ice age lasted 500 years, and I am pretty sure it was noticeable since it was credited with causing the plague and famine.
what famine? and i've never heard the plague being caused by a localised <1C drop in temperature. in fact - which plague are you talking about? i'm almost certain the black death preceded the LIA.

So again, how do you blame man for it? Because precedent has been set, climate change can be that abrupt and drastic, without the influence of man
Drastic? It was less than one degree over 500 years (PS. I have doubts about the 500 year figure as well, there's a lot of debate as to where it actually began).
http://www.shorstmeyer.com/msj/geo165/films/lia1.pdf
2010-05-26 05:29:48
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Began 7 centuries ago
Not by conventional wisdom. Most people will say 16th century.

Millions perished
Evidence?

It was an abrupt cooling
Abrupt in a few local places. Not globally.

What happens to a glacier depends on two factors: 1. Temperature and 2. The amount of snowfall. A warmer atmosphere often results in greater frozen precipitation during winter and result in the GROWTH of glaciers. Even if the weather warms the snowline, where melt = accumulation can be found at lower and thus warmer altitudes if the balance between accumulation and snow melt is tilted towards accumulation.
Whilst true on a very general scale, whoever wrote this basically ignores themselves by forgetting that temperature does play a role as well.

apart from in Scandinavia and Iceland where more precipitation has resulted in glacier growth.
I like how this is highlighted. Whilst "Tropical glaciers in Africa have decreased in area by 60 to 70% on average since the early 1900s...
The vast majority of all Himalayan glaciers have been retreating and thinning over the past thirty years, with accelerated losses over the last decade... Arctic glaciers have all been receding (retreating),", but of course Scandanavian and Icelandic glaciers aren't so there can't possibly be a trend. And I'm pretty sure they're retreating as well (1 - full text) (2). Although if this documentary is more than about 6 or 7 years old I can understand the confusion... but it's definitely not confused now.

Was 2o-3o cooler (annual average, a big temp change) than today
Loaded sentence. Does "today" mean "today's much warmer than usual temperatures"?

What caused The Little Ice Age is a mystery?
- a recurring cycle?
- a blue print of our future?
There are definitely theories. None of which are to do with the main cyclical driver of climate (Milankovich cycles).

The rest of it is anecdote, don't really care about it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 05:39:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

Began 7 centuries ago
Not by conventional wisdom. Most people will say 16th century.

Millions perished
Evidence?

It was an abrupt cooling
Abrupt in a few local places. Not globally.

What happens to a glacier depends on two factors: 1. Temperature and 2. The amount of snowfall. A warmer atmosphere often results in greater frozen precipitation during winter and result in the GROWTH of glaciers. Even if the weather warms the snowline, where melt = accumulation can be found at lower and thus warmer altitudes if the balance between accumulation and snow melt is tilted towards accumulation.
Whilst true on a very general scale, whoever wrote this basically ignores themselves by forgetting that temperature does play a role as well.

apart from in Scandinavia and Iceland where more precipitation has resulted in glacier growth.
I like how this is highlighted. Whilst "Tropical glaciers in Africa have decreased in area by 60 to 70% on average since the early 1900s...
The vast majority of all Himalayan glaciers have been retreating and thinning over the past thirty years, with accelerated losses over the last decade... Arctic glaciers have all been receding (retreating),", but of course Scandanavian and Icelandic glaciers aren't so there can't possibly be a trend. And I'm pretty sure they're retreating as well (1 - full text) (2). Although if this documentary is more than about 6 or 7 years old I can understand the confusion... but it's definitely not confused now.

Was 2o-3o cooler (annual average, a big temp change) than today
Loaded sentence. Does "today" mean "today's much warmer than usual temperatures"?

What caused The Little Ice Age is a mystery?
- a recurring cycle?
- a blue print of our future?
There are definitely theories. None of which are to do with the main cyclical driver of climate (Milankovich cycles).

The rest of it is anecdote, don't really care about it.
Actually I posted it to give a broader picture of the human affects of the climate change IE the plague and famine etc....but still, is this any more or less evidentual than anyone else? If proof is your big concern, where is the proof from todays scienctists, ( I mean the scientists that have not committed fraud regrarding their case)

Again I have not this thread, but is there indisputable proof that we are to blame? If not then why do you insist on indisputalbe proof that we are not to blame and are so readily accepting of the notion that we are?
2010-05-26 05:44:25
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
( I mean the scientists that have not committed fraud regrarding their case)
Plenty... remember that there has been a grand total of one documented instance of systematic fraud.

but is there indisputable proof that we are to blame? If not then why do you insist on indisputalbe proof that we are not to blame and are so readily accepting of the notion that we are?
I'm asking you to one-up the theory. That's what science is about. And again... there is no such thing as "indisputable" in science.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 05:51:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

( I mean the scientists that have not committed fraud regrarding their case)
Plenty... remember that there has been a grand total of one documented instance of systematic fraud.

but is there indisputable proof that we are to blame? If not then why do you insist on indisputalbe proof that we are not to blame and are so readily accepting of the notion that we are?
I'm asking you to one-up the theory. That's what science is about. And again... there is no such thing as "indisputable" in science.
But you are not equally open to the arguments that this climate change, as it has been since the beginning of time, is a natural occurrence. Even with evidence that there is precedence to such abrupt change.
2010-05-26 06:00:42
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
But you are not equally open to the arguments that this climate change, as it has been since the beginning of time, is a natural occurrence. Even with evidence that there is precedence to such abrupt change.
Have I ever denied that natural climate change occurs? No. What I have said that natural climate change is highly unlikely to occur at the speed at which it is currently occuring and in any case the pre-requisites for natural change - such as a sudden massive external shock like the damming of an ocean current - have not occurred.

Even with evidence that there is precedence to such abrupt change - except I have more, and stronger evidence, that it was not nearly as abrupt as you say it was across the world. There would obviously be pockets of sharper cooling but globally is a different matter.

And finally, to state the obvious, the LIA was a cooling period. Cooling periods follow different mechanisms (volcanism etc.) and so to equate it to a warming period is something to be very wary of.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-05-26 06:21:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Spark wrote:

But you are not equally open to the arguments that this climate change, as it has been since the beginning of time, is a natural occurrence. Even with evidence that there is precedence to such abrupt change.
Have I ever denied that natural climate change occurs? No. What I have said that natural climate change is highly unlikely to occur at the speed at which it is currently occuring and in any case the pre-requisites for natural change - such as a sudden massive external shock like the damming of an ocean current - have not occurred.

Even with evidence that there is precedence to such abrupt change - except I have more, and stronger evidence, that it was not nearly as abrupt as you say it was across the world. There would obviously be pockets of sharper cooling but globally is a different matter.

And finally, to state the obvious, the LIA was a cooling period. Cooling periods follow different mechanisms (volcanism etc.) and so to equate it to a warming period is something to be very wary of.
From what I read  the LIA had global affects, what global affects are there today that equal those of the LIA? In fact, if there wasn't some scientist spouting off about it, you wouldn't even know there was anything to be concerned about, as from what I can tell, we are not affected to the extremes of that posed in the LIA. So I am not sure how you can dismiss the LIA as irrelevant to argument as a precedence.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard