Climate Change Report

[Carl Pickens]

The original projections for death were early 80's somewhere around the exact time oil reserves would run dry and the population explosion would cause massive food/water shortages.

 

[bcmbvol]

My degree is in biochemistry and cell and molecular biology, and I’m a chemist so I’m not unfamiliar with how science works. Peer review has plenty to answer for, and doesn’t have a sterling reputation for me. I will look through some of the IPCC reports, and get back to you, tho.

 

[Girth Brooks]

I just told you how. By taking into account factors which affect climate and then coming up with a hypothesis that identifies the conclusion that best explains the data.

This is entirely antithetical to the scientific method. You’re basically admitting what you are attempting to deny--scientists can reach conclusions that fit the results, not letting the results prove/disprove the hypothesis. IOW, it’s tantamount to rolling loaded dice a set number of times, and through probabilistic methods, presenting a statistical analysis as though the dice are unloaded.

The hypothesis precedes the conclusion, if you’re looking for an honest, scientific approach. If you’re not, and you want to do cartwheels through the metaphysical, then have at it.

Stomp that eggo with your leggo.

 

[Mick]

Neither. There are too many variables to test. There is no lab vast enough to test accurately. The complex environmental equilibrium is also not testable on such a grand scale.

What we can say for sure is: there are instruments measuring increases in specific data points related to climate/atmosphere.

What the climatologist are studying is changes in the atmosphere. They know what makes up the atmosphere and they test to determine what has an effect on it. Things have been banned because if has such a drastic effect. Do you doubt that carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere? If so, state your case. Do you doubt changes in the atmosphere changes the climate? If so, state your case.

 

[Mick]

My degree is in biochemistry and cell and molecular biology, and I’m a chemist so I’m not unfamiliar with how science works. Peer review has plenty to answer for, and doesn’t have a sterling reputation for me. I will look through some of the IPCC reports, and get back to you, tho.

I propose these questions.

What the climatologist are studying is changes in the atmosphere. They know what makes up the atmosphere and they test to determine what has an effect on it. Things have been banned because if has such a drastic effect. Do you doubt that carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere? If so, state your case. Do you doubt changes in the atmosphere changes the climate? If so, state your case.

 

[LouderVol]

What makes you think anyone was accurately monitoring global ocean temp in 1880??

This is what gets me. They talk about these storms being 100 year levels or 500 or 1000. Europeans have barely been on this continent for 500 years. Let alone wide spread enough and talking to each other enough to know what was going on where. Or even to what levels. No ideas on wind speed. Not terribly good ideas on rain fall per hour, how big the storms are etc etc. At best they are basing their comparisons on a single data point

 

[bcmbvol]

@Mick how long do i have?

 

[Wafflestomper]

This is entirely antithetical to the scientific method. You’re basically admitting what you are attempting to deny--scientists can reach conclusions that fit the results, not letting the results prove/disprove the hypothesis. IOW, it’s tantamount to rolling loaded dice a set number of times, and through probabilistic methods, presenting a statistical analysis as though the dice are unloaded.

The hypothesis precedes the conclusion, if you’re looking for an honest, scientific approach. If you’re not, and you want to do cartwheels through the metaphysical, then have at it.

Stomp that eggo with your leggo.

I think you missed the part where I said that they come up with a conclusion that best explains the data (i.e., the tests, empirical evidence, etc.). Perhaps that sentence was poorly worded.

However, I don't know what this really has to do with anything; I'm not a climate scientist so even if I knew nothing about the scientific method it would lend no credence at all to the thesis that scientists are part of a global conspiracy.

 

[1972 Grad]

@Mick how long do i have?

Longer than me, I hope.

 

[Mick]

@Mick how long do i have?

Until we destroy the Earth.

 

[McDad]

What the climatologist are studying is changes in the atmosphere. They know what makes up the atmosphere and they test to determine what has an effect on it. Things have been banned because if has such a drastic effect. Do you doubt that carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere? If so, state your case. Do you doubt changes in the atmosphere changes the climate? If so, state your case.

Observing changes is about all they can. Extrapolating relevance from those
observations is a whole different ballgame.

I doubt man is changing the climate. My case: glacier scraped rocks in NYC and the history of the sea levels rising and falling many times...all before humans were numerous enough to change anything.

Im sure the Earth will warm. Im also sure there is another ice age in our future. I also know these things will happen whether humans are on the planet or not.

 

[Mick]

@Mick how long do i have?

Could resist that last post. Just whenever you feel like getting back with me on the subject.

 

[bcmbvol]

@Mick hey dude, either way, global conspiracy or pending doom, we could do with some levity.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Daniel Turner: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

I’m not quite old enough to remember the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s and the media’s drumbeat of the coming ice age that would end mankind. But I have been told many times the end is near by doomsday prophets who have frightened people into green orthodoxy better than any cult leader.
As an 8-year-old kid I was particularly jarred by an episode of the TV show “Diff’rent Strokes” in which acid rain caused Kimberley’s hair to turn green. I lived in New York City just like the TV character, I believed my rain was poison.
Throughout high school I was told that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and aerosols were tearing a hole in the ozone layer, and that it could never be repaired. Deadly UV rays would give us all cancer because I used spray deodorant. I switched to roll-on.
...

Then came the mother of all doomsday scenarios: global warming. It blew away other environmental issues like candles on a cake. Deadly heat and floods. Ice caps melting. Polar bears dying. Alligators and sharks invading. TV shows. Movies. Books.
Former Vice President Al Gore warned we were all going to die from global warming.
Thirty years ago this week, the United Nations issued a global warming report that I distinctly remember. It predicted worldwide disaster.
According to the report, the Great Plains of America would return to the Dust Bowl. The oceans would rise by several feet, causing low-lying countries like the Maldive Islands and Bangladesh to be underwater.
The report said North Africa would bake into wastelands. Rainforests would be gone, as would much animal life. And it was all because of fossil fuels. American greed. Us. Me. Switching deodorant did nothing to stop it.
Tough lessons for a 15-year-old high school sophomore.
And here we are 30 years later, and I look back at that 1989 report, I think only this: What happened?

The predictions in the report were not just a bit “off" – like my calculations in my high school math class, my understanding of Shakespeare, or my failed attempt to high jump. The U.N. report was flat-out wrong. It was 100 percent, complete opposite, 180-degree wrong.
...

 

[norrislakevol]

What the climatologist are studying is changes in the atmosphere. They know what makes up the atmosphere and they test to determine what has an effect on it. Things have been banned because if has such a drastic effect. Do you doubt that carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere? If so, state your case. Do you doubt changes in the atmosphere changes the climate? If so, state your case.

Some, sure. There is really no accurate way to measure this and there is no way to determine exactly where which gas is coming from or from what source.

Changes in the atmosphere certainly do play a role in the climate, but unfortunately the climate models do not take this into account.
All you have right now is a bunch a guess work. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the early 90s the earths mean temperature dropped.....that's right, I said DROPPED by over a degree for over a year due to debris in the atmosphere and all the gasses pumped into the atmosphere. The earth healed itself very fast though, as it always does. That volcano alone pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than you can shake a stick at.

Thing is, there is no way to know with any precision what effect anything plays. It's just a hypothesis.

 

[norrislakevol]

Observing changes is about all they can. Extrapolating relevance from those
observations is a whole different ballgame.

I doubt man is changing the climate. My case: glacier scraped rocks in NYC and the history of the sea levels rising and falling many times...all before humans were numerous enough to change anything.

Im sure the Earth will warm. Im also sure there is another ice age in our future. I also know these things will happen whether humans are on the planet or not.

How dare you inject logic into this argument sir!!

Spot on.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't know what you mean by "A scientist shouldn't try to prove anything;" it seems like the opposite is true. But presumably they believe their hypothesis is true because they have been paid to believe that..

Fify

 

[82_VOL_83]

I propose these questions.

I propose this question:
Assuming that all of the propaganda being foisted upon us has some truth, with the US already becoming more green year over year, what is raising my taxes for ACC going to do to make China, India, Russia and every other country in the world to adopt our clean standards?

My answer is: Not a damn thing but make some rich a-hole richer (read Algore).

 

[Mick]

I propose this question:
Assuming that all of the propaganda being foisted upon us has some truth, with the US already becoming more green year over year, what is raising my taxes for ACC going to do to make China, India, Russia and every other country in the world to adopt our clean standards?

My answer is: Not a damn thing but make some rich a-hole richer (read Algore).

View attachment 211840

Why fuss about the science then? You're using the same science to measure "progress" that has been made by trying to make American lives better through conscious environmental efforts. Can you honestly put a price on clean air and water.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Why fuss about the science then? You're using the same science to measure "progress" that has been made by trying to make American lives better through conscious environmental efforts.

I didn't fuss, my hypothesis gave you the benefit of the doubt. Answer the focking question.

 

[Burger]

Why fuss about the science then? You're using the same science to measure "progress" that has been made by trying to make American lives better through conscious environmental efforts.

He's asking two questions basically. What is the point of government take over of the GND if progress is already being made? How does legislation like the GND stop China and India from mass pollution.

 

[Mick]

I didn't fuss, my hypothesis gave you the benefit of the doubt. Answer the focking question.

I propose this question:
Assuming that all of the propaganda being foisted upon us has some truth, with the US already becoming more green year over year, what is raising my taxes for ACC going to do to make China, India, Russia and every other country in the world to adopt our clean standards?

My answer is: Not a damn thing but make some rich a-hole richer (read Algore).

View attachment 211840

Is there a plan out there that is going to use your tax dollars to make China, India, and Russia comply with an multinational environmental climate collective that the United States is not part of.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Is there a plan out there that is going to use your tax dollars to make China, India, and Russia comply with an multinational environmental climate collective that the United States is not part of.

We are already becoming cleaner year over year. Why do you need more $$?

 

[Mick]

We are already becoming cleaner year over year. Why do you need more $$?

Who is asking for your money?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Who is asking for your money?

I always thought you played stupid....now I begin to wonder.