Global Warming is a legit threat

#3
#3
Global warming is real and does not need to be joked about We need to take this serioulsly and get together and work for the betterment of mankind before it is to late
 
#4
#4
westtnorangeman said:
Global warming is real and does not need to be joked about We need to take this serioulsly and get together and work for the betterment of mankind before it is to late
Click to expand...

so did you hear the joke about the polar bear floating on a piece of ice...


:eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:
 
#5
#5
MG1968 said:
so did you hear the joke about the polar bear floating on a piece of ice...


:eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:
Click to expand...

"Al Gore makes all kinds of money using my image and all I got was a few lousy carbon credits."
Paul R Bear
 
#8
#8
westtnorangeman said:
Global warming is real and does not need to be joked about We need to take this serioulsly and get together and work for the betterment of mankind before it is to late
Click to expand...

We do have some work to do with regard to what we are going to do to concerning climate change. There is not a scientific consensus in the sense that every scientist agrees with every other scientist on the issue - and there never will be.

I study a system that has been studied for over 40 years: there is still a lot of scientific disagreement and discourse on the matter. There are hypotheses and some seem better than others....some have been proven over time...but, no scientific consensus, per se. That is just something that doesn't really happen.... However, that doesn't mean that there are core ideas about the subject that cannot be generally accepted (although maybe not everyone agrees). This issue is at the heart of climate change.

The problem with climate change is that we are talking as much as a 1% hit on GDP right away to make the cuts necessary. Is that a lot? What would be the cost in the future if we don't act? This is always the problem when scientific issues come to meet socioeconomic concerns....we've got to make some tough decisions and drop the buck (or not) to address the problem (or non-problem).

I have studied the science, and I think that the general warming predictions will bear out, as well as much of the sea level rise predictions most likely. It is always possible that there will be a negative feedback they have missed...and it won't happen...but much do you bank on something like that? The drought and flood scenarios will likely happen - but I kind of wonder if those will ever be definitively separated from normal weather patterns. Then...you will have patterns of El Nino or La Nina that raise or lower temperatures ... and will make it difficult, over short periods, for people to accept warming trends...or perhaps to believe that warming is happening faster than it actually is.

Governments face a very serious risk analysis question...and life-cycle cost question. Do they invest in technologies to curb or limit climate change? I am not an actual scientist who works on climate change, so my opinion doesn't count much ... but I think that we are very close to a point where we will need to make those investments. There are climate scientists who understand a lot about the policy implications of their work..so these decisions won't be made in a vacuum.
 
#12
#12
I'm still going to tell global warming jokes. Al Gore as the high priest of the Church of Climatology is too good a target to pass up.
 
#13
#13
One thing that will be interesting is that regardless of who wins the Presidential election, we will have a President who has an interest in addressing climate change....although Obama has told us very little (surprise).
 
#14
#14
TennTradition said:
We do have some work to do with regard to what we are going to do to concerning climate change. There is not a scientific consensus in the sense that every scientist agrees with every other scientist on the issue - and there never will be.

I study a system that has been studied for over 40 years: there is still a lot of scientific disagreement and discourse on the matter. There are hypotheses and some seem better than others....some have been proven over time...but, no scientific consensus, per se. That is just something that doesn't really happen.... However, that doesn't mean that there are core ideas about the subject that cannot be generally accepted (although maybe not everyone agrees). This issue is at the heart of climate change.

The problem with climate change is that we are talking as much as a 1% hit on GDP right away to make the cuts necessary. Is that a lot? What would be the cost in the future if we don't act? This is always the problem when scientific issues come to meet socioeconomic concerns....we've got to make some tough decisions and drop the buck (or not) to address the problem (or non-problem).

I have studied the science, and I think that the general warming predictions will bear out, as well as much of the sea level rise predictions most likely. It is always possible that there will be a negative feedback they have missed...and it won't happen...but much do you bank on something like that? The drought and flood scenarios will likely happen - but I kind of wonder if those will ever be definitively separated from normal weather patterns. Then...you will have patterns of El Nino or La Nina that raise or lower temperatures ... and will make it difficult, over short periods, for people to accept warming trends...or perhaps to believe that warming is happening faster than it actually is.

Governments face a very serious risk analysis question...and life-cycle cost question. Do they invest in technologies to curb or limit climate change? I am not an actual scientist who works on climate change, so my opinion doesn't count much ... but I think that we are very close to a point where we will need to make those investments. There are climate scientists who understand a lot about the policy implications of their work..so these decisions won't be made in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

You seem like someone who would appreciate this.

MichaelCrichton.com | Complexity Theory and Environmental Management

It's not a difficult read but it is a long one. Actually, I recommend it to everyone, even beyond the AGW argument. On a shorter note for people that don't want to wade through the entire lecture I offer up this quote (also by Crichton but not from the cited lecture) that when I read it truly put me on the path to skepticism:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

After the above quote sank in the simple observation was that no greater aspect of AGW was given more credence than this supposed "concensus". It is the bludgeon that is not only used to sell the idea but to discredit, outright and with little or no debate, any who oppose their view. One would be hard pressed to listen to any AGW subscriber for more than 30 seconds without that term, or something analogous, being used. That, and the patently absurd statements that "the science is settled" made me a doubter some time ago. Since, I can think of no other subject I've ever come across where the more research I do the farther I stray from the "accepted" paradigm.
 
#16
#16
We are all in agreement global warming is a joke. It is non existent. We are simply in a pattern that is all. Now we can all move onto our ABCs...
 
#17
#17
TennTradition said:
I'm glad you have resolved this issue for us. Attention all climatologists, stop work now - you're wasting your time.
Click to expand...

I think your taking liberties here, not "all" climatologists think alike in this matter. And our next president is most certainly expand our goverment even more than the last. My property in the Bahamas is looking more special as we go forward. (be truthful, my "wifes" property in the Bahamas)
 
#19
#19
iceman9 said:
I think your taking liberties here, not "all" climatologists think alike in this matter. And our next president is most certainly expand our goverment even more than the last. My property in the Bahamas is looking more special as we go forward.
Click to expand...

See above (long) post - I was not taking liberties (I acknowledged there are two sides - however, in the climatology community it is heavily, heavily weighted to those who accept the theory).

I stand by my point as well, even those who don't buy into the theory can stop their work of speaking out against climate change theory...because apparently the issue is decided. The problem is...the conclusive answer is different depending on who you ask, apparently...interesting...
 
#21
#21
hndog609 said:
Since, I can think of no other subject I've ever come across where the more research I do the farther I stray from the "accepted" paradigm.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link and quote....

As for this statement...I find this very interesting on a personal note...because I am the exact opposite. When I didn't know that much about it and had only read a bit here and there, I was pretty skeptical. It seemed like the next great wacko theme. However, since then I have studied the issue a lot more - and I have moved from skeptic to one who accepts the general premise. There are certainly some weak areas (and the climatologists will generally admit this)...and these weaknesses are part of what makes preparing responses to warming a problem. But, these weaknesses have little to do with the foundation of the theory and much more to do with chaos in climate forecasting...as well as the basic problem with modeling complex (and complicated), many-variable systems.
 
#22
#22
Not really, their will always be climate to study, as long as we exist. We(as a species) will always study what we can not control. Just our nature, and people will always take sides, not based on data, reality, but on what they "want" to believe, what their ideology of life is. As a man with years of life behind me, going thru all the misimformation, and hysteria. I will never trust scientist, thats just my nature, and alot of my age bracket feel the same, we've seen to much to the contrary. You and I have battled many times on this subject, and to be quite honest, I've enjoyed it. I do respect you as a passionate believer, but as long as live, I will never trust the data spit out by scientist. It may kill me one day, and thats my choice, if it does, I expect you to drink a beer to my wonderful, misguided life.....:eek:k:
 
#23
#23
iceman9 said:
It may kill me one day, and thats my choice, if it does, I expect you to drink a beer to my wonderful, misguided life.....:eek:k:
Click to expand...

:) Indeed.....I wish that scientists were good enough that your mistrust were unwarranted...but it isn't. There's a lot of good work going on out there, but also some bad work ... some issues get politicized and bad decisions are made on weak science. Sometimes, though, good decisions are made on good science (believe it or not).
 
#24
#24
Very intersting points by Chrichton. Some of seems wrong to me, but it is an interesting point. Historically, real scientific discovery has always worked against the grain.
 
#25
#25
TennTradition said:
:) Indeed.....I wish that scientists were good enough that your mistrust were unwarranted...but it isn't. There's a lot of good work going on out there, but also some bad work ... some issues get politicized and bad decisions are made on weak science. Sometimes, though, good decisions are made on good science (believe it or not).
Click to expand...

TT, that is the nature of us all, you have to find that needle in the haystack, but I think you understand that as long as politics and billions of dollars are involved, their will be, and "should be", some skepticism in play to keep everything above board. I absolutely know that this country, or this world would not be better off without scientist. Onward young man, and remember skeptics like me are a good thing, we're going to get under your skin sometimes, but that will keep striving to prove us wrong, and their is nothing wrong with that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top