How Global Warming Really Works

[Ishmael]

Whut?

You post some graphs (made, no doubt, by scientists) and I post some more graphs (not disputing yours, but amplifying on the issue) and then you reply that science is bullshit?


Dark matter, quantum tunnelling and the neural mechanisms of memory formation are 'common sense'?


In science, as in law, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes that such and such is true. The role of the objector is to point out how the proponent's hypothesis does not better explain the facts than what is already understood. Simply ridiculing a hypothesis, however, is never a substitute for constructive criticism (something that many of the people on these forums clearly fail to understand). "Nyah nyah your idea sucks" is not a valid rebuttal, but an error in logic that betrays an inability to think and speak clearly.

If you don't have a clue as to what Mencken said or meant, just admit it and move on.

Ishmael

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

lol @ this shit

 

[dan_c00000]

I see it's still the trysail, strange, and ishy amateur science hour! I suggest they start with this page before they even attempt to understand the fake bullshit behind that watts clown who routinely gets his ass handed to him by real science.

http://epa.gov/r5climatechange/posters/children-climate-change-post.jpg

 

[tactful]

It's mostly caused by the Sun and everyone's breathing, so, every other day everyone should stop breathing, for an hour or so.

 

[Ishmael]

I see it's still the trysail, strange, and ishy amateur science hour! I suggest they start with

~snip~ to winnow the chaff.

You can't quite grasp the concept that climatology is in it's infancy as a science. It will mature as time goes by, but for the time being it's approximately where Phrenology was when it was in it's infancy. They don't have all the answers and don't even have a complete grasp of the complexities. They have theories and predictions, and all of the predictions have fallen flat on their face heretofore. So much so that they've actually gone back and massaged the numbers to match measurements, which is very much like declaring which horse will win the Kentucky Derby the day after the race was run. And you don't need a PhD in anything to be able to do that.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

~snip~ to winnow the chaff.

You can't quite grasp the concept that climatology is in it's infancy as a science. It will mature as time goes by, but for the time being it's approximately where Phrenology was when it was in it's infancy. They don't have all the answers and don't even have a complete grasp of the complexities. They have theories and predictions, and all of the predictions have fallen flat on their face heretofore. So much so that they've actually gone back and massaged the numbers to match measurements, which is very much like declaring which horse will win the Kentucky Derby the day after the race was run. And you don't need a PhD in anything to be able to do that.

Ishmael

Why not tell us again how oil is technically a renewable resource, you stupid son of a bitch?

#IshScience
#AlternateReality
#DumbAsADoorknob

 

[KingOrfeo]

You can't quite grasp the concept that climatology is in it's infancy as a science. It will mature as time goes by, but for the time being it's approximately where Phrenology was when it was in it's infancy.

And you know that how?

 

[phrodeau]

~snip~ to winnow the chaff.

You can't quite grasp the concept that climatology is in it's infancy as a science. It will mature as time goes by, but for the time being it's approximately where Phrenology was when it was in it's infancy. They don't have all the answers and don't even have a complete grasp of the complexities. They have theories and predictions, and all of the predictions have fallen flat on their face heretofore. So much so that they've actually gone back and massaged the numbers to match measurements, which is very much like declaring which horse will win the Kentucky Derby the day after the race was run. And you don't need a PhD in anything to be able to do that.

Ishmael

OK so, where's the evidence that taking steps to reverse human-caused ecological damage would be economically harmful? How mature is that scientific endeavor?

 

[Ishmael]

OK so, where's the evidence that taking steps to reverse human-caused ecological damage would be economically harmful? How mature is that scientific endeavor?

If your goal is to eliminate ecological damage caused by humans, then you must eliminate humans. There is no alternative.

We are no different than the Beaver, the Honey Bee, the Ant, the Elephant, the Bacteria, or the various plants that poison other plants. We all alter our environment to maximize our survival.

Every time you take a shit you're "altering" the environment. But you are also insuring another species survival

So if you're so God damned concerned, go kill yourself. But do so knowing full well that no matter how your remains are disposed of..........you're altering the environment.

Life goes on...........with you or without you.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

If your goal is to eliminate ecological damage caused by humans, then you must eliminate humans. There is no alternative.

We are no different than the Beaver, the Honey Bee, the Ant, the Elephant, the Bacteria, or the various plants that poison other plants. We all alter our environment to maximize our survival.

Every time you take a shit you're "altering" the environment. But you are also insuring another species survival

So if you're so God damned concerned, go kill yourself. But do so knowing full well that no matter how your remains are disposed of..........you're altering the environment.

Life goes on...........with you or without you.

Ishmael

I said "damage", dumbass.

 

[haurni]

They don't have all the answers and don't even have a complete grasp of the complexities. They have theories and predictions, and all of the predictions have fallen flat on their face heretofore. So much so that they've actually gone back and massaged the numbers to match measurements

This is how you improve the models (with reference to studies that support why and how you're tweaking the variables). Of course, the real test comes when you find out whether or not those models accurately predict future events. Though by then it's too late if you're right. Lacking a crystal ball, you base the model on a randomly-selected subset of the data and then see if it fits the rest. I concede that it's not perfect, but it's the best we have at the moment, and what we have is suggesting that there's a problem brewing. If we wait for confirmation (and get it) then we're screwed.

 

[Ishmael]

I said "damage", dumbass.

Well idiot, there are thousands of species that would disagree with you. They are thriving in the 'damage' we cause. So.....damage (ne. alteration) is all in the eyes of the definer. Then again, maybe all those species are 'evil'.

Ecological religionists are really no different than any other cult.

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

I guess a carbon tax means people have to die.

 

[trysail]

This is how you improve the models (with reference to studies that support why and how you're tweaking the variables). Of course, the real test comes when you find out whether or not those models accurately predict future events. Though by then it's too late if you're right. Lacking a crystal ball, you base the model on a randomly-selected subset of the data and then see if it fits the rest. I concede that it's not perfect, but it's the best we have at the moment, and what we have is suggesting that there's a problem brewing. If we wait for confirmation (and get it) then we're screwed.

As pointed out earlier in this thread— "in the absence of quantified risks" that is "equivalent to Pascal's Wager."



​

 

[Saint Peter]

We are a virus to Mother Earth. She has grown tired of our bullshit and will rid herself of us with a nice fever.


By 2040 all humans will be dead.


Enjoy the time you have left.

 

[Ishmael]

We are a virus to Mother Earth. She has grown tired of our bullshit and will rid herself of us with a nice fever.


By 2040 all humans will be dead.


Enjoy the time you have left.

Thank you George.

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

Thank you George.

Ishmael

It was nice knowing you and shit.

 

[haurni]

As pointed out earlier in this thread— "in the absence of quantified risks" that is "equivalent to Pascal's Wager."

By that logic, if you can't accurately predict the probability of falling, it's okay to walk across a tightrope without a safety harness. It's about 'reasonable probabilities'. Where do you draw the line? And given that you can never know the exact probabilities, how much is 'quantified' enough for you? There's always a chance if you flip a coin that it might land on its edge, so really the odds of each face are not exactly 50-50.

Pascal's Wager is, to me, a false choice, as it presupposes only two alternatives. It doesn't consider all the non-Christian religions that might be true (not that I believe they are). So really it's a choice between hundreds if not thousands of alternatives.

Global warming doesn't seem so complicated - either it won't happen, it'll happen but not as bad as we think it might, or it'll happen as bad or worse than we think. Based on the general consensus, a 1 degree rise in global temperature appears to me almost a certainty, and (based on human nature) a greater rise seems highly probable to me (i.e. in excess of, say, a 10-20% chance over the next 100 years). These odds are high enough for me to be reasonable concerned and think we should take some action. Those who make the models might very well say that the probability is higher.

We can't pin down the exact probabilities because our models are inexact, but they tend to support the idea of significant temperature increases. Note as well that these are probabilities, and by the very nature of which things could still happen even if the chance is very low. The likelihood of an undetected asteroid large enough to destroy a building striking the earth in the next 24 hours is very very low, but it is not impossible. The likelihood of a much larger one striking earth over a longer time frame is high enough to me to warrant NASA keeping an eye out for them and developing contingency plans if one is spotted.

If your goal is to eliminate ecological damage caused by humans, then you must eliminate humans. There is no alternative.

We are no different than the Beaver, the Honey Bee, the Ant, the Elephant, the Bacteria, or the various plants that poison other plants. We all alter our environment to maximize our survival.

Altering our environment to the point of destroying our society is hardly 'maximizing our survival'.

 

[phrodeau]

I think that we are the only species on Earth that is sucking up poisons from underground and spewing them into the upper atmosphere.

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/wpvi/cms_exf_2007/news/local/8818352_448x252.jpghttp://childfriendlynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/antarctica-ozone-layer-460x250.jpghttp://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/India/NuclearBomb.jpghttp://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/B-52-Stratofortress-148.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[StrangeLife]

I think that we are the only species on Earth that is sucking up poisons from underground and spewing them into the upper atmosphere.

A wild conjecture illustrated by two ancient pictures from my dads youth and a "smoking" nuclear power plant...

 

[thør]

I would like to add cattle flatulence to the list.

And methane hydrates.

A wild conjecture illustrated by two ancient pictures from my dads youth and a "smoking" nuclear power plant...

The "smoke" from the Nuke plant cooling tower is water vapor.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), formerly a climate-change skeptic, changed his mind after researching the issue.

Excuse me, I have to go wash some pigshit out of my hair.

 

[StrangeLife]

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), formerly a climate-change skeptic, changed his mind after researching the issue after being threatened or bought by the E&EI.

Excuse me, I have to go wash some pigshit out of my hair.

Corrected it for ya.

 

[StrangeLife]

And methane hydrates.



The "smoke" from the Nuke plant cooling tower is water vapor.

They're polluting the atmosphere with water vapor??? A scandal I say! No wonder Phrodeau is upset...