Interesting new emergence: Gore's "Hockey Stick" has been disproven.

White Cluster

Gives Life Meaning
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
225
Location
Ct
motivatordf8bd62baeaed3fa1fe727f4c2.jpg
motivatordf8bd62baeaed3fa1fe727f4c20b6e225a4dd2e0.jpg
 

Xaios

Foolish Mortal
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
11,153
Reaction score
4,850
Location
Nimbus III
After about 2 and a half pages, my eyes just kinda glazed over, but I'll offer up my 2 cents...

I moved to Whitehorse 5 years ago. Since I moved here, the grand majority of the time it has been colder than historically average. This past summer was some of the first really nice warm weather we've had here in years. For a solid 2 years before it was constantly cold and miserable, last winter especially was brutal, not only was it VERY cold, but we got an absolute ton of snow. Generally it snows when the weather warms up, but it was snowing at -40 degrees. I shudder to think how cold it would have been had it stayed clear.

Obviously, things are different depending on where you live. They're expecting this winter to be warmer than average here, due to El Nino. I'm kinda looking forward to it, actually.

Bottom line though is that from my personal experience, I'm not exactly convinced of anything. I believe there's merit in what some people are saying on both sides of the fence, and I also believe that other people on both sides of the argument are driven by their own ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Plain as day, there are lots of people who would benefit extremely well financially with the shift to greener consumerism. Then again, oil companies also benefit from the other side of the spectrum, so it balances out pretty well.

In any case, while I may not be an advocate of the global-warming-prophet-of-doom camp, I still believe we should be good stewards of our planet. Let's face it, we spew more dangerous gases into our breathing air than carbon dioxide all the time. Those kinds of things will kill us long before greenhouse gases. I'm not going to lose sleep knowing that I drive a car with a 3.5 liter engine, but I'm not going to run it at a constant 5,000rpm either.
 

JBroll

Hard-On For Freedom™
Contributor
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
531
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Everybody who isn't a climate researcher can go right ahead and shut the fuck up. Pro-global-warming, anti-global-warming... whatever side you're on, I don't care. Unless this was an interest of yours *before* politicians and talking heads turned it into a fucking circus act where science was thrown out by *both sides* when it didn't suit their agenda, just put a fucking sock in it and let climatologists do the talking for once. This is absurd and depressing, and anyone motivated for any reason other than interest in the subject itself *without* political bullshit is due for a few slaps upside the head - you (again, I don't care *what* side you're on) are making it *no* easier for actual science to happen, so quit trying to put words in people's mouths if you're not interested in this for any reasons deeper than superficial partisan cuntstuffery.

Jeff
 

JBroll

Hard-On For Freedom™
Contributor
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
531
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
I don't know of any, but the American political scene could use a good 5-10 year of mandatory "shut the fuck up until you get your Ph.D. in a related field and let scientists speak for themselves instead of trying to shout over everyone whose involvement is solely due to political motives" enforced by swift kicks to the shins and ankles.

Jeff
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,312
Reaction score
13,733
Location
The Electric City, NY
You know, Jeff, for someone who believes so heavily in individual freedom and personal responsibility, you sure do a lot of broadly categorizing people and making blanket statements. :rolleyes:

Implementing a "you're not allowed to post in this thread, unless you're a board-certified, licensed, and practicing expert on whatever's being discussed; or Jeff's going to call you names" policy doesn't sound like a very effective idea.

So what. We're a board full of average people, who all have feelings or hypotheses about things based on our personal experience. And so what if you disagree with what somebody says, or don't think they've got the science to back it up? Tell them that, but don't get sand in your vagina just because they're not an expert, so therefore, they need to STFU and GTFO. :nuts:
 

JBroll

Hard-On For Freedom™
Contributor
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
531
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
No, this is about people turning science into something that's catastrophically nonscientific. The political bias in a lot of these posts makes me really doubt that the science itself is why people care; given how badly abused the topic is - not just here but all across the country - and how many missteps were made so quickly by both sides (one making an absolute statement based on one graph, another pretending that anecdotal evidence is enough for a solid scientific conclusion, et cetera) it's hard to care about science for science's sake and not be pissed. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but it's not always a good idea.

Jeff
 

JBroll

Hard-On For Freedom™
Contributor
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
531
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
In an unusual fit of something resembling maturity (I know, it surprises even me) I simply refuse to take a position one way or the other. I am *violently* apathetic about the issue, and since I'm not well-read in the subject I think that is the only reasonable position for me to take - I wish this was more frequent, because then climate change science could take place more easily and comfortably without bullshit from the peanut gallery popping in only because of motives that aren't even remotely scientific.

The science of climate behavior has become a far stickier place to be for *both* sides of the debate, and everyone from corporate think tanks with environment-killing agendas to signwavers on the street to political commentators to Al Gore is doing damage to one of the few human endeavors that is actually capable of producing real progress. If people can't leave their coat, hat, ego, and politics at the door when discussing science, it's very hard for the discussion to achieve anything that isn't cockwaving cuntstuffery.

Jeff
 

Scar Symmetry

Ex Whiny Bitch
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
15,865
Reaction score
2,950
Location
Bristol, UK
You know, Jeff, for someone who believes so heavily in individual freedom and personal responsibility, you sure do a lot of broadly categorizing people and making blanket statements. :rolleyes:

Implementing a "you're not allowed to post in this thread, unless you're a board-certified, licensed, and practicing expert on whatever's being discussed; or Jeff's going to call you names" policy doesn't sound like a very effective idea.

So what. We're a board full of average people, who all have feelings or hypotheses about things based on our personal experience. And so what if you disagree with what somebody says, or don't think they've got the science to back it up? Tell them that, but don't get sand in your vagina just because they're not an expert, so therefore, they need to STFU and GTFO. :nuts:

Agreed.

In an unusual fit of something resembling maturity (I know, it surprises even me) I simply refuse to take a position one way or the other. I am *violently* apathetic about the issue, and since I'm not well-read in the subject I think that is the only reasonable position for me to take - I wish this was more frequent, because then climate change science could take place more easily and comfortably without bullshit from the peanut gallery popping in only because of motives that aren't even remotely scientific.

The science of climate behavior has become a far stickier place to be for *both* sides of the debate, and everyone from corporate think tanks with environment-killing agendas to signwavers on the street to political commentators to Al Gore is doing damage to one of the few human endeavors that is actually capable of producing real progress. If people can't leave their coat, hat, ego, and politics at the door when discussing science, it's very hard for the discussion to achieve anything that isn't cockwaving cuntstuffery.

Jeff

So basically, because you don't know anything about this, we're not allowed to either?

Just messin' ;)
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,312
Reaction score
13,733
Location
The Electric City, NY
@Jeff; I think you're absolutely right about that. Politically motivated "science" boiled the whole subject down to something completely... um... un-science-like.

For my part, I can't say I know for a fact whether or not climate change is a real thing and if it's man made/contributed but I've always been someone to air on the side of safety. :shrug:

But, honestly, the bigger reason I support what I do (energy conservation, cutting down on burning fossil fuels, etc.) are things that have a lot more evidence to support them, like acid rain and high mercury levels in sea/wild life. Living in the shadow of the Adirondacks, you can go all over the place and find evidence of acid rain and, hell, all you need is a DEC fishing guide to see what it's done to the wildlife (apparently I'm not supposed to eat more that two lake trout a month, or I'm going to be retarded by the time I'm 30?). Localized air pollution, noise pollution, ground water pollution; the list goes on.

Plus, conserving energy and finding alternative sources shows potential to save money and creates jobs (and prosperity, if you can capitalize on it); plus, innovation sparks more innovation, and so on.

If anything, THAT'S where the issue is and should've been cause enough for people to change their ways. While I think a lot of the alarmist tactics are totally 'wheels-off', most things that help to cut down pollution are something I'm a fan of; but even still, I'll admit that we don't know enough to give credit to either side's right for political squabbling.

You're dead on in saying that it's "I'm right, you're wrong" politics that have shifted the argument away from science, and the miseducation of people on the subject is proof of that. If anything, people need to be inspired by this, not to argue nonsensically, but to research as deeply as possible to make an informed decision.

FWIW, this thread has inspired me to look into the subject further, and I have an open (albeit, politically motivated) discussion like this to thank for that. I hope others are inspired to do the same. :yesway:
 

JBroll

Hard-On For Freedom™
Contributor
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,099
Reaction score
531
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
I certainly don't think we should avoid movement to other energy sources (and those who think that we must have government funding to make progress in energy needs to look at the wonderful ways their representatives actively impede energy research to help their friends in oil and gas), but I do think that the benefits of having more possible energy sources give strong enough arguments that whining about devaluing penguin property *detracts* from the point.

Whether global warming is real or not - again, *no* side is taken here but the typical JBroll 'fuck all of you' stance - the move to conserving and discovering energy sources is enough of a good idea on its own that we shouldn't need so many twits yapping away about their misunderstandings of science.

If more people actually knew what was going on with climate change, this would be a non-issue - unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case on *either side - believers haven't crucified Al Gore for so wonderfully fucking everything up with his piece of shit film, and nonbelievers haven't blown up the 'think tanks' that try to disprove and discredit just to make their sponsors happy, and until that happens this is not a debate that can lead to progress.

Science is no democracy, and it's certainly not a collection of laymen's opinions - when so many are bastardizing it so horribly, how do we expect anything to get done? If you don't form - and base political views on - the relative merits of loop quantum gravity or string theory, the validity of the Navier-Stokes equations, or the existence of Hawking radiation without any real grasp of the science involved, why is it an even remotely good idea to do so for the less-understood field of climatology?

When you have people misunderstanding quantum mechanics and trying to find religion or spirituality in it, failing to count and claiming to have a theory of everything based on their own incompetence, or using their total lack of knowledge of evolution as an argument for intelligent design, it looks *fucking stupid*. Nobody can take your opinions away, but sometimes no answer is better than a wrong answer and the ability to have an opinion on something you don't understand should not be confused with encouragement to do so.

Jeff
 

Xaios

Foolish Mortal
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
11,153
Reaction score
4,850
Location
Nimbus III
But, honestly, the bigger reason I support what I do (energy conservation, cutting down on burning fossil fuels, etc.) are things that have a lot more evidence to support them, like acid rain and high mercury levels in sea/wild life. Living in the shadow of the Adirondacks, you can go all over the place and find evidence of acid rain and, hell, all you need is a DEC fishing guide to see what it's done to the wildlife (apparently I'm not supposed to eat more that two lake trout a month, or I'm going to be retarded by the time I'm 30?). Localized air pollution, noise pollution, ground water pollution; the list goes on.

2 comments:

1) Agreed, just as I said, there's worse things going into the air than carbon dioxide.

2) Boy, does that place ever sound crappy. I could eat the local fish for the rest of my life and never suffer any ill effects.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,312
Reaction score
13,733
Location
The Electric City, NY
And from reading that, you'd think I live in the middle a crowded city or something, but here's a couple examples of what we're talking about:

Sacandage Lake (formerly a reservoir, and spanning 41+ sq. miles)
2cmkfaw.jpg


Beardslee Creek (which runs off of Beardslee Reservoir; which is just as dangerous to eat from as the creek)
ibdn49.jpg


And so on. The story is the same for literally any body of water in New York.

Both places I've mentioned, if I catch something, I have to read through my pamphlet to determine whether or not it's going to kill my slowly, or quickly. It's criminal, really.

The good news is that a lot's been done to slow it from getting worse, but a lot of the damage is already done. Also, I emphasize the word slow because not a lot can be done to stop it entirely, unfortunately.

Not that anyone cares, but you can see a brief write-up about either issue here:

Acid Rain - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Mercury Management - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
 

Xaios

Foolish Mortal
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
11,153
Reaction score
4,850
Location
Nimbus III
Yikes dude. That's a real bummer.

Come to the Yukon. All our stuff is still pristine. Absolutely dead serious, I don't even think we have to chlorinate the drinking water in this city, it's clean and tastes fresh, right outta the tap, and you'll never get some disease from drinking it. Come enjoy it while it lasts.

Speaking of disease from drinking water, I actually got cryptosporidiosis when I was 9 years old from the drinking water in Kelowna, which is actually normally quite good as well. Thousands of people got sick from it, and I think over a hundred people died. I tell you though, it wasn't fun.
 

The Dark Wolf

Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
17,582
Reaction score
995
Location
Toledo, Ohio. USA
Astronomers tell us there are black holes. Overwhelming consensus on it. They study the universe. They know, if anybody knows.

Geologists tell us there are plate tectonics. Overwhelming consensus. They study the earth. They know, if anybody knows.

Biologists tell us DNA is the source of life. Overwhelming consensus. They study life. They know, if anybody knows.

Physicists tell us there are smaller particles than electrons. Overwhelming consensus. They study particles. They know, if anybody knows.

Physicians tell us cholesterol leads to heart disease. Overwhelming consensus. They study the body. They know, if anybody knows.


... climatologists (the people who study, duh, the climate) tell us? Global warming is real, and it's (at least in part) caused by humans.

You do the rest of the math. ;)

Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
 

Xaios

Foolish Mortal
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
11,153
Reaction score
4,850
Location
Nimbus III
Just to be clear on the above post, are you saying that we should accept everything that science tells us, or that we shouldn't accept anything that science tells us (unless it can be verified first hand)?
 

MacTown09

SS.org Regular
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
997
Reaction score
197
Location
Mckinney/Denton, Tx
How could global warming be based on CO2 content in the atmosphere?? Correlation does not imply causation. These two rising phenomenons can be attributed to many DIFFERENT things right?? Perhaps the number of emails being sent in the world or maybe the increasing use of cell phones is responsible for increasing temperatures? Joking, but my point is that because they are rising with the CO2 levels and the temperature, they are game to be causes as well.

MY REAL POINT is that there is FARRRRRR too much that we DO NOT know for us to think that this is all as simple as a a single correlation. It is much more probable that a combination of the THOUSANDS of processes that are going on in our galaxy is responsible for this.

I think us humans need to realize how big this place is.
 


Top