Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 9:36 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
#31
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Yes and he was also sceptical of AGW, of course. Big Grin

The solar argument is completely unproven, yes there are noticeable activity on Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and probably most of the other planets too, but the sun itself is not experiencing increased activity, thus the cause probably isn't solar. :p
Reply
#32
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 18, 2013 at 9:22 am)Aractus Wrote: Yes and he was also sceptical of AGW, of course. Big Grin

The solar argument is completely unproven, yes there are noticeable activity on Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and probably most of the other planets too, but the sun itself is not experiencing increased activity, thus the cause probably isn't solar. :p

If you can suggest another heat producing factor that is common to all the planets of the solar system I would like to hear it.

By the by, the measured increase is not a lot so I imagine that the corresponding solar increase would be very tiny(though this is of course speculation on my part)
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#33
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Sure, pump out more results and you'll get more funding - but the flip side of that coin is that if you utterly demolish those same results at a commensurate rate you will also receive more funding. There's as much money to be had in criticizing the findings of others as their is in the findings themselves. There is no "modern capitalistic science" conspiracy at foot- not even an accidental one.

It should be noted that Lindzen is not a skeptic of AGW, but of catastrophic AGW. It should also be noted that his major publication on the subject has been discredited and that he himself, after reviewing the criticism offered to it, conceded that he had handled his data very poorly, leading to fundamental flaws in his competing theory.

AGW -can be- a boogeyman that political forces -can leverage- to push an agenda. But that doesn't actually mean that this is what AGW -is-. The evidence for AGW is not low, it is phenomenally robust. Not only do we have the data that shows the warming trend, we understand why our activities have this effect. We also understand how the same trend can be accomplished in the absence of our activities (which has happened in the past), and in understanding this we can conclude that those parameters have not been met in the present. IOW, of all of the things that we know -can- be a cause for this sort of warming (the list is long), the only thing operating right now at any demonstrable level is human activity.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about any scientific findings, or proposals you might see backed by a political body. Nothing at all. There simply comes a point where skepticism can not be maintained in earnest in the face of evidence. There is still plenty of room for skepticism with regards to projections and predictions made by any particular body concerning the effects of AGW, but AGW itself is simply an expression of chemistry and physics. Certain gases have certain effects - this is a demonstrable reality. We are releasing those gases into our atmosphere - this is a demonstrable reality. As we release those certain gases into our atmosphere we have noticed a warming trend - this is a demonstrable reality. We are not aware of any other contributing factor currently in effect that could account for this trend - this is a demonstrable reality. There you go, the core of AGW. If someone goes "Day After Tommorrow" on you, feel free to laugh and be skeptical - however, there really isn't much to be skeptical about with regards to whether or not gasses have certain effects, and that releasing them into our atmosphere will produce them.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#34
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Personally not looking at blame gaming.


What do we do now?


Carbon pricing is NOT going to reduce the AGW output not matter how much politicians want it to.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#35
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
The jury is more or less out and man made climate change is real
However no one is really going to do much about it, so we may as well just ignore it and get on with or lives

Seriously, everything we do increases greenhouse gasses or increases the amount of solar radiation absorbed by decreasing the albedo of the earth or poisoning some vital algae or even by fiddling with the carbon cycle by stopping rivers reach the sea.

if you expect that we can do all that and not affect the earth you must be nuts.

http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Clim...eases.html



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#36
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 18, 2013 at 6:32 am)Aractus Wrote: None of the sceptics understand it very well? Would you say that of Richard Lindzen? He's a sceptic out of "ignorance"?

Two seconds of research into this guy and I come up with this statement.

Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty."

Although I'm not familiar with him, a cursory reading of his position sounds like he doesn't disagree with the science rather with the political conclusions. Yes, I still maintain that no one who disputes climate change understands it. Someone being a scientist doesn't even make them intelligent. It's more likely they are, but the only guarantee is that they can trudge their way through academia well.
[Image: dcep7c.jpg]
Reply
#37
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 16, 2013 at 12:26 pm)Sciworks Wrote:
Quote:Global Temperatures Continue to Rise


Where does your info come from? It is widely known that there has been no rise in the last 16 years!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Cherry Picking.

This graph of global temperature averages as a deviation from normal shows Spencer’s data from December 1978 through December 2012. Please note the upward trend.

[Image: 12-78through12-12_zpsc99facef.jpg]

This graph of global temperature averages as a deviation from normal shows Spencer’s data from December 1978 through December 1998. Please note the upward trend.

[Image: 12-78through12-98_zps99e638bb.jpg]

This graph of global temperature averages as a deviation from normal shows Spencer’s data from January 1999 through December 2012. Please note the upward trend.

[Image: 1-99through12-12_zps523a5822.jpg]

Spencer’s Dataset

The global temperature increase continues. Even Spencer’s data confirms this conclusion.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
[Image: JUkLw58.gif]
Reply
#38
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 16, 2013 at 8:04 pm)Sciworks Wrote: Yeh - blah blah Global Warming blah blah Climate Change blah blah......

But not one mention about the original post!

Maybe if your "source" was not

"A free-market energy blog" you would taken a little more seriously.

I remember in the 80's when Mobil used to run ads in TIME Magazine every week about how some "scientist" ( on their payroll of course") said that drilling in Alaska was good for caribou.
Reply
#39
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Am I being horribly negative, but I do not see any evidence of any institution being able to deal with problems that are not so evident that they need current action. All the institutions we have do not seem able to plan for anything which might happen in more than say ten years.
It is because of this I have come to the conclusion that institutions of government are irrelevant, in that they are only able to react to current situations.
This has influenced me to turn against politics which needs to attain the power of governing institutions, to a politics which is external to governance by institution.
I would not mind hearing some thoughts.
[Image: signiture_zps1665b542.gif]
Reply
#40
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 16, 2013 at 8:04 pm)Sciworks Wrote: Yeh - blah blah Global Warming blah blah Climate Change blah blah......

But not one mention about the original post!

Perhaps that’s because the OP was typical climate change denial bullshit. The report you are complaining about wasn’t “a single bad science sea level rise report.” The North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report talks about the findings of several studies of past sea level rise in North Carolina and cautiously projected some possible scenarios of future sea level based on different degrees of sea level rise acceleration. The fact that sea level is rising and that the rate is increasing is not in dispute.

On the other hand we have a group of developers (the NC-20, a 501(c4) lobbying organization that doesn’t reveal the sources of their funding) spreading lies (long debunked climate denial bullshit) because dong the right thing would hurt them where it counts. In their fucking pocket book. Business as usual makes them rich and sticks federal taxpayers with the bill every time their developments get wiped out.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
[Image: JUkLw58.gif]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  truth about game theory, bad or good for the world? Quill01 13 2139 August 21, 2021 at 7:25 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  Damn! How bad did they want to burn up Ted Bundy ? vorlon13 2 1004 December 12, 2016 at 1:48 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Why combating bad claims is important. Brian37 9 2236 November 24, 2015 at 11:33 am
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)