thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Jul 9, 2009 16:54:50 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 9, 2009 18:37:00 GMT -5
Do you have something against 10 page, year long threads? Now it's gonna die, thank you very much.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 9, 2009 18:53:11 GMT -5
"So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’
....Heaven And Earth .....points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.
All this is scientific fact — which is more than you can say for any of the computer models turning out doomsday scenarios about inexorably rising temperatures, sinking islands and collapsing ice shelves."
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 10, 2009 7:42:57 GMT -5
Ive read the first three paragraphs and i already love this guy
"Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history."
finally someone is standing up for the truth with no hesitation. cant wait to read the book
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 10, 2009 11:23:27 GMT -5
Ive read the first three paragraphs and i already love this guy "Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history." finally someone is standing up for the truth with no hesitation. cant wait to read the book So, let me get this straight -- without reading any of this, you take everything he says at face value but you devalue every opposing point of view, of which there are many. What's the point of reading it? Your mind is made up. |
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 10, 2009 12:41:55 GMT -5
Ive read the first three paragraphs and i already love this guy "Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, he argues, is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history." finally someone is standing up for the truth with no hesitation. cant wait to read the book So, let me get this straight -- without reading any of this, you take everything he says at face value but you devalue every opposing point of view, of which there are many. What's the point of reading it? Your mind is made up. Well, yeah my mind is made up, but from other evidence similar to what this guy has written about. I wasnt just coming to it on the fence about GW and then reading three paragraphs and choosing a side. What i was happy about was his attitude. Most of the time when people offer counter evidence, they give a lot of "buts" to their argument in order to avoid backlash. This guy is just like screw everyone this is what i think. It was his attitude that i was happy about, not so much his work, although i like that too. Also i ordered the book so i will be reading it, as i have with other works that are in support of global warming. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 10, 2009 12:47:23 GMT -5
And before you attack me back for the same thing, here afre my actual opinions so you can at least attack me for them:
1. The environment is changing from non-human influence, though to exclude ourselves from that effect is silly, since we are animals, too.
2. The environment is changing to some degree from the effect of humans. There has never been a species that has been so widespread in scope and in effect of its actions -- other species may unintentionally drive others into extinction, but we're the only species who alters the fundamental balance of the environment in the way we do.
In other words, to say we have no effect is silly. This is moreso in habitat loss in my mind than in climate change specifically, but everything is related.
3. Global warming is causing Nate Lubick to decommit.
4. It's very possible that humans are causing accelerated climate change. Evolution and the normal balancing act of the natural world does not react well to sudden change.
5. No one knows the long term effects of climate change. Like I said, the natural world does not react well to sudden change. While it is true that 99% of all species are extinct and that this and climate change are in the natural order, no one has the seen effect of what we can do. The universe is littered with planets which once had environments not unlike earth's, but changes have altered it.
If nothing else, turning the world into one big desert or reducing our available water supply would be bad for those of us living on it right now.
It may not even be likely that something like this happens, but it is like insurance, folks, once it happens, it is too late to purchase it.
6. In terms of species extinction, one thing I do know is that simple ecosystems are violently unstable and tend to collapse. When the natural course of nature makes something extinct, there is usually something else that won out. It's not the same thing every time. We are making our ecosystem simple and more unstable.
7. The jobs "cost" is wildly overstated. Regulation creates jobs. For every coal mine that might be lost, a job is created to make filters on factories. For every oil job lost, there's a job at a windmill, etc. There is temporary pain, but long term benefit.
8. If you can have renewable, clean, energy, why stick to what we have now? I don't get it. We've known about this for thirty years -- so the excuses ring hollow for me (i.e., the it's what we have now). Time to invest.
9. There are trade-offs everywhere to be made. And if you want to argue for one specific economic item versus something else, I'd urge people to grow the pie and find a way to get both. But that's not what people are arguing here. You're putting your head in the sand because you can't absolutely prove something.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 10, 2009 13:06:53 GMT -5
C'mon, the old global warming piefight thread is a year and half old. That's tradition, people. Boz, you gotta have my back on this one, right?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 10, 2009 13:15:28 GMT -5
C'mon, the old global warming piefight thread is a year and half old. That's tradition, people. Boz, you gotta have my back on this one, right? Ha! ;D Yes, while I almost certainly do not have bando's back on the actual issue of anthropogenic climate change (nor he mine, I am sure), I definitely agree with him that we have an existing thread for this topic. I'm sure we can yell at each other just as loudly in that thread as in a new one. And given how often the subject comes up, I don't think that thread is buried too far. If it's farther back than Page 3, I'll eat my hat and buy Al Gore's movie. EDIT: Upon checking, it's actually still on Page 1, so now there's really no excuse. |
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 12, 2009 5:39:17 GMT -5
And before you attack me back for the same thing, here afre my actual opinions so you can at least attack me for them: I didnt mean to sound like i was attacking you, failures of an internet with no ability to express tone.  |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 12, 2009 7:23:36 GMT -5
And before you attack me back for the same thing, here afre my actual opinions so you can at least attack me for them: I didnt mean to sound like i was attacking you, failures of an internet with no ability to express tone. No worries, I was trying to make a joke as well. |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,729
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 12, 2009 12:38:06 GMT -5
Models, models, models. No respect for models. I deal with it in my work (as a research chemist). But models do work, if you realize their pros and cons. In my work I deal with quantum chemistry (quantum mechanics). This is a theory that was formulated in the 1920's and '30's. It explains most (all?) of the phenomena in physics and chemistry. The trouble with it is every system except for the very simplest (two particles) has to deal with approximations. As you go up in complexity those approximations become cruder and cruder. There are steps you can take to normalize these effects, essentially looking at theory vs experiment and producing calibration curves. I have done this in my work and found out that it points out in very real terms experiments that were not very well done. And the theory allows me to predict activity of systems, which haven't been analyzed by experiment.
The systems I am dealing with are simple compared to atmospheric considerations. But the same paradigm should be in effect in modeling these systems. Sure you should take the absolute results with some skepticism, but you should listen to what the models are telling you, if they were correctly done. Real data is the measuring stick in these models. How the models measure up to the data is important.
|
|
