just an FYI

6/2/2008 5:21:45 PM

Quote :

"I think Boone should be banned from this thread for the reason that he has no idea what he is talking about"

You don't know anything about it, either.

But guess who does-- the scientists studying it. I take them at their word..

You listen to some engineers in Canada, the President of the Czech Republic, an editorial in the Charlotte newspaper, and Professor That You Totally Talked To This One Time.

6/2/2008 5:25:02 PM

Quote :

"I take them at their word.."

Unless of course they too are skeptical, in which case their word means nothing...but you'll eat up anything a former US Vice President tells you

Klaus is a skeptic just like me...since we don't have enough information to draw a definitive conclusion about climate change, its natural to be skeptical. Anyone who knows one iota about the scientific process knows this. People who are completely ignorant to how science works, like yourself, still don't realize this, because it would completely fuck up your belief system.

I don't know how anyone, given the current data, could completely believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Maybe if I were to really, really want to believe it, though.

Quote :

"Professor That You Totally Talked To This One Time."

By that logic, someone who gets a 4 year degree in mathematics "totally did a math problem one time." Keep belittling my degree and knowledge on the subject though...you're a high school history teacher, right? Making fun of what I studied doesn't make you look like as big of a fool as when you actually try to talk about science. What is the expression, its better to look like an idiot than open your mouth and confirm it? Stick to that MO when it comes to the subject of science.

6/2/2008 5:26:52 PM

Quote :

"I don't know how anyone, given the current data, could completely believe in anthropogenic climate change."

Only a bunch of crackpots would believe in such a thing

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?fulltext=climate+change&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=GO

http://www.americanscientist.org/search/home_result.aspx?q=climate%20change

http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-climate-change

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/environment/global-warming/

6/2/2008 5:38:05 PM

^ so do you think that our government should pass legislation that controls how much energy we use?

personally, I know that we as americans use way to much energy (among other things) per capita. I myself try to conserve, both because I think our consumption is killing our country and from a wallet/economics standpoint (im cheap)
BUT
Im not sure I want the government telling me how much I can use or when I can use it.

6/2/2008 5:45:37 PM

The closest thing to what you're suggesting would be CAFE.

Even then, it hardly "tells" you how much energy to use. It just makes it more expensive to waste energy.

6/2/2008 5:50:15 PM

To Boone-Tard: If I came here for validation, I'd seek psychiatric help. And I don't give a flying fuck whether you or anyone else here takes me seriously or not.

For the record, I provide more evidence for my positions than just about anyone else here--check "qntmfred's TWW Stats Thread." You just don't like what I present and who fucking cares about that.

You act as if science and "ideological consequences" are mutually exclusive. Are you suggesting that there are no political or social implications concerning the alarmists' proposals to combat climate change/global warming? Really?!

Piss off.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 5:52:09 PM

Quote :

"You act as if science and "ideological consequences" are mutually exclusive."

I do.

because they are.

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously.

6/2/2008 5:55:53 PM

^ You'll pardon me if I reject outright your notion that you speak for everyone. In any event, did you get a chance to consider this, smart guy?

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that there are no political or social implications concerning the alarmists' proposals to combat climate change/global warming? Really?!"

6/2/2008 6:05:46 PM

you know you've pwnt Boone when he ignores 90% of each of your posts since he is unable to discuss science without someone telling him what he's supposed to say

too bad he doesn't get the hint and stick to political TSB topics, since he's completely out of his league in science-related TSB topics

6/2/2008 6:06:21 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that there are no political or social implications concerning the alarmists' proposals to combat climate change/global warming?"

I don't think anyone, in the 46 pages of this thread, suggested otherwise.

But what is that supposed to prove?

^I'm the one who's out of touch.

Would you like to address the fact that I apparently am in touch with all major scientific journals?

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 6:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 6:07:37 PM

hey i can google 'climate change scientific journal', i'm in touch with something i don't understand

6/2/2008 6:13:04 PM

Yeah, I was just showing you that I have the ability to post links.

I didn't want you to read them or anything crazy like that.

6/2/2008 6:15:46 PM

just like when i post something relating to scientific substance, i don't want you to argue those points or anything crazy like that, i just want you to mock my education and denounce any sources that you don't agree with

you can just post links to prove you understand science, instead of actually....discussing science

6/2/2008 6:16:44 PM

1. Neither of us know enough about the subject to actually debate the nitty-gritty of the science.

2. Therefore appeals to authority are acceptable.

3. I provide better sources.



At what point do you disagree?

6/2/2008 6:19:26 PM

Quote :

"1. Neither of us know enough about the subject to actually debate the nitty-gritty of the science."

speak for yourself...I've been debating the nitty-gritty of the science throughout the entire thread...but not all of us majored in History like you did

6/2/2008 6:20:46 PM

Not all of us majored in whales and fix blackberries, either.

6/2/2008 6:22:55 PM

Quote :

"For the record, I provide more evidence for my positions than just about anyone else here"

right up there with treetwista and salisburyboy. remember, it's quality, not quantity we're after

6/2/2008 6:38:23 PM

it's gettin hot outside! cmon al gore. order me up some global cooling now.

6/2/2008 6:39:56 PM

^^ That's total horseshit and you know it. And who the fuck is "we"?

When one lobs the salisburyboy comparison, you know he or she is out of ammo. Fucking lame.

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 7:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 7:13:53 PM

^^^nice empty post...good looking out with your ignorance

Quote :

"Not all of us majored in whales and fix blackberries, either."

hay guyz, i'm a history major who teaches in high school, please bow down to my science knowledge that i gained from totally browsing some websites

people like boonedocks use arguments like "well the scientists say," and then when confronted with arguments regarding the actual science and disputing the articles, he resorts to "well the scientists say" instead of actually refuting the arguments (since he's intellectually unable)

his lack of substance in posts regarding climate change and really all things scientific is quite concise and clever...clever is always welcome...but when attempting to convey that you know what the fuck you're talking about with science, concise isn't always good...in his case it shows his blind partisan beliefs...quite sad

6/3/2008 12:47:39 AM

I partially agree with Twista here. Asserting that the debate is over goes against the core principles of science. The debate ain't never over. This should apply double to a question as complex as this one. The planet's vast and intricate. The models aren't perfect and continue to be revised.

On the other hand, this uncertainty doesn't negate the compelling evidence in favor of the anthropogenic global warming. Note that the uncertainty goes both ways. If speculative positive feedback loops prove true, it could be a lot worse than our current models predict. Given the possible danger, we don't need certainty.

(By the way, that article by Krauthammer make absurd, unjustified claims immediately after criticizing the global warming crowd for doing this. Socialism has been buried forever by capitalism? Really? How do you know? The man isn't convinced by climate models yet feels confident predicting our economic future out to infinity.)

6/3/2008 1:31:49 AM

Quote :

"The planet's vast and intricate. The models aren't perfect and continue to be revised. "

thats always been my main reasoning for my agnosticism on the subject...the fact that people are willing to jump to conclusions at minimum shows their lack of understanding of science in general...yet they seem adamant and absolute in their opinions, regardless of their ignorance of the subject and the principles of the scientific method...its frustrating to try and reason with someone who already has unfair predispositions based on things other than logic and facts

6/3/2008 1:36:27 AM

Quote :

"1. Neither of us know enough about the subject to actually debate the nitty-gritty of the science."

So let me make sure I'm understanding you.

You really believe that you're in a position to challenge all major scientific journals on the issue?

I mean, shouldn't you be publishing your findings or something?

[Edited on June 3, 2008 at 8:00 AM. Reason : .]

6/3/2008 7:48:53 AM

I'm sorry, but you people who keep bitching about the models don't know what you're talking about.

The fact is that doubling the CO2 concentration (which is what we're doing) has a very clear temperature forcing effect on the atmosphere on the order of magnitude of what they predict. All these 'models' are for feedback loops and complicated interactions. Take ALL of these out and the truth remains.

CO2 has a radiative forcing of like 1.46 W/m^2 for every 100 ppm added. Sunlight is of a power of 1300 W/m^2, meaning we cause like 1 to 3% more to bounce back in the greenhouse effect. Blackbody radiation dictates that temperature will have to increase 2 or so degrees Celsius to the system to stabilize again.

OMG the planet is vast and intricate. This has no consequence on the basic claim of global warming. You CAN NOT rely on this argument. It does not make sense.

6/3/2008 8:59:23 AM

GoldenViper

6/3/2008 10:53:18 AM

^

.

6/3/2008 11:15:18 AM

^^^so are you saying there is no debate?

6/3/2008 11:15:50 AM

Would you like to debate 1+1=2, as well?

6/3/2008 11:36:07 AM

the earth's systems are as simple as 1+1! your average kindergartner can explain climate change! science is simple! people + co2 = evil!

I was asking mrfrog if he was saying there is no debate...he actually has a grasp of science unlike you

6/3/2008 11:37:44 AM

Quote :

"OMG the planet is vast and intricate. This has no consequence on the basic claim of global warming. You CAN NOT rely on this argument. It does not make sense."

6/3/2008 11:49:43 AM

you gonna troll this thread all fucking day or what? can you produce a single thought of your own? maybe the Duke should put you in the box for a few days

6/3/2008 11:50:29 AM

Global warming would be a cool theory if it weren't to placate votes out of fear from people.

But alas.

6/3/2008 11:55:18 AM

Quote :

"OMG the planet is vast and intricate. This has no consequence on the basic claim of global warming. You CAN NOT rely on this argument. It does not make sense."

I understand the basic effect of CO2. Hell, I even learned about it in a college course. (OMF, humanities major!) I haven't done a thorough review of the science, but I've dabbled here and there. I suspect the worst, that the feedback loops will cause higher ocean levels and such than predicted in official reports. But given the various revisions and contrary opinions I've seen, combined with core scientific principles, I can't agree that the debate's over. I understand the motivation behind the claim, but any insistence on the mainstream view to silence the skeptics makes me a little uncomfortable. After all, even the 2007 IPCC only described global warming as very likely, given a 90% chance that human actions had caused the temperature increase. I don't think there's reasonable doubt that we're having an effect, but you can argue about the severity of the coming changes. It's conceivable (not likely) that they won't cause significant damage.

6/3/2008 1:12:38 PM

Al Gore compared people who are skeptical of global warming (not deniers mind you, but simply skeptics) with people who think the Earth is flat...what a moron

6/3/2008 1:21:03 PM

Well, clinging to the possibility that climate change won't cause significant damage strikes me as altogether too optimistic. A risk doesn't have to be absolutely certain to prompt action. Far from it.

6/3/2008 1:50:32 PM

should we start putting a few trillion dollars a year towards the possibility of a large asteroid hitting our planet?

6/3/2008 1:57:11 PM

What a great analogy

6/3/2008 2:23:46 PM

Quote :

"After all, even the 2007 IPCC only described global warming as very likely, given a 90% chance that human actions had caused the temperature increase."

What does this mean, really? It is asking the question of weather or not global warming has caused the warming that has happened. So the question is: up to 2007-ish, was the rising of temperature normal or the start of a human caused increase.

Weather not the answer is negative or affirmative changes nothing. If you proved that global warming will happen with increasing CO2 levels, then it doesn't matter when it is observed, we're dealing with a sporadic system.

Take radioactive material releases. Utilities try to reduce the released radioactivity in the vicinity of a nuclear plant, but the level is 1000x what is detectable even in the worst areas due to the sporadic nature of natural radiation. Is it meaningless to reduce the effluent emissions then? No. Increasing (something bad) beyond natural levels is not good weather it is detected or can be detected.

Now, no one doesn't 100% believe in global warming. That's like saying you don't believe greenhouses don't work. They do. So, countering someone who claims global warming isn't happening is pointless until said person specifies their position. But at the same time, ostracizing them for their position is also pointless.

[Edited on June 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2008 2:45:48 PM

Quote :

"Increasing (something bad) beyond natural levels"

what are "natural" CO2 levels?

6/3/2008 4:20:37 PM

Quote :

"should we start putting a few trillion dollars a year towards the possibility of a large asteroid hitting our planet?"

Your question alludes to the fact that it depends on the projected level of risk. I support asteroid detection scheme. We should know what's coming out way. If an impact seemed likely, I suspect we would devote resources to prevent it. The threat of global warming is great enough to prompt some level of action. Of course we shouldn't completely disregard material progress in favor reducing emissions, especially not in the developing. Doing so would be pure Western arrogance, as Snarkie's cartoon suggests.

6/3/2008 4:36:01 PM

But if there's only a 90% chance of an asteroid hitting, then we should just do nothing.

at most, take uninformed pop-shots at scientific findings.

6/3/2008 4:51:19 PM

please dont ever post in this thread again

6/3/2008 4:54:52 PM

I point out how stupid your analogy is, and then you get pissy.

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE

[Edited on June 3, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : /]

6/3/2008 4:56:07 PM

you are way too ignorant to point out anything relating to climate change...all you do is clog up the thread with garbage...you never make any points at all in this thread, just get the fuck out and go talk about politics or something other than science...go grade some homework or something

6/3/2008 4:57:02 PM

After all, even the 2008 NASA report only described a hit as very likely, given a 90% chance that asteroid 18472b will hit.

LET'S DO NOTHING


And now you're trying to appeal to authority.

Guess what? I win that game.

6/3/2008 4:58:12 PM

Quote :

"should we start putting a few trillion dollars a year towards the possibility of a large asteroid hitting our planet?"

The rate of return on investment there would be better than a lot of pork-barreling that goes on today. Think about the kinds of solutions & research that would fall under that kind of undertaking?

The scaremongering and disaster scenarios that Gore & some of his buddies espouse are still a ways off from what the IPCC report actually predicts... It still seems reasonable to have high environmental standards because we breath the air that we pump this shit into. It is a highly complicated system, with tons of variables, all of which we will never be able to predict without some level of error... Reasonable restrictions should be welcomed, they'll encourage businesses to push for innovation. In fact, I'd venture to say they'll encourage & produce innovation a lot faster than any kind of tax incentives.

Exactly the same way that higher fuel prices will lead to innovation in both technology and lifestyle as we grapple with ways to do the same thing with half the resources.

6/3/2008 4:58:43 PM

^^you win at the game of clogging up a climate change thread with comments that have absolutely nothing to do with climate change...some would call that trolling

[Edited on June 3, 2008 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ^^]

6/3/2008 4:58:47 PM

There's only a 90% chance of that occurring.

6/3/2008 5:01:43 PM

is this your way of asking to be suspended?

6/3/2008 5:02:27 PM