Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:11:00 -
[1]
Enjoy
I am finding it a very interesting read. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:22:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Sharupak Enjoy
I am finding it a very interesting read.
I think you're 11 months late here.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Asperger
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Asperger on 01/10/2007 19:22:53 It's weird that people would rather believe in the Sunday Telegraph, in a dishonest document from 2006, written by an amateur, rather than real climate scientists...
His conclusions are laughable mostly because they either outright false or simply ask the wrong question.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Sublime.
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:26:00 -
[4]
Also, this being a research paper, about a current issue, with current information, he cites Arrhenius?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:45:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Sharupak on 01/10/2007 19:46:06 I just came across it
I would like to see the counter. I have seen documentaries on a medevil warming trend, but not in the detail described by this study. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:50:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Asperger Edited by: Asperger on 01/10/2007 19:22:53 It's weird that people would rather believe in the Sunday Telegraph, in a dishonest document from 2006, written by an amateur, rather than real climate scientists...
His conclusions are laughable mostly because they either outright false or simply ask the wrong question.
How is it dishonest/false? Do you have a link to an article that dismantles this? _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Thanos Draicon
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 19:59:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Thanos Draicon on 01/10/2007 20:05:33
Originally by: Document
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False 2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely 3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False 4. That the last centuryÆs increases in temperature are correctly measured.Unlikely 5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.Not proven 6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely 7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.Unlikely 8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely 9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely 10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
None of those propositions or their conlcusions are scientifically tested hypotheses, and scientists don't use words like "not proven" or "unlikely" to discuss the conclusion of experiments, research, or studies.
Also, the majority of his sources are 10-20 years old, and only about 10 out of 50~ are from after 2000.
Also, look at the wording of these arguments:
Quote: 8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely 9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely 10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
He's suggesting that curbing carbon emissions will be ineffective, changes to mediate our impact on the environment would be too costly to make them worthwhile, and that precautionary measures would actually be irresponsible instead of responsible. Given the source's history of being involved with the leadership of the conservative party and how these three arguments are not environmental issues but financial ones (which should be outside the scope of a scientific study unless on that specific subject), it's fairly easy to see that this study is unscientific, cherry-picks its (sometimes 30 year old) data, and is more about money than science. ---------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X Hey I have an idea: "Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!"
Enjoy your time away from our forums.
|
Asperger
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 20:06:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Sharupak
Originally by: Asperger Edited by: Asperger on 01/10/2007 19:22:53 It's weird that people would rather believe in the Sunday Telegraph, in a dishonest document from 2006, written by an amateur, rather than real climate scientists...
His conclusions are laughable mostly because they either outright false or simply ask the wrong question.
How is it dishonest/false? Do you have a link to an article that dismantles this?
Not an article, but a lot of discussion and references are linked here.
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 20:09:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Thanos Draicon
Originally by: Document
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False 2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely 3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False 4. That the last centuryÆs increases in temperature are correctly measured.Unlikely 5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.Not proven 6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely 7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.Unlikely 8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely 9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely 10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
None of those propositions or their conlcusions are scientifically tested hypotheses, and scientists don't use words like "not proven" or "unlikely" to discuss the conclusion of experiments, research, or studies.
Also, the majority of his sources are 10-20 years old, and only about 10 out of 50~ are from after 2000.
I noticed that, but if you google stuff like global warming statistics or global warming scientific papers, all you get are stuff like this..
Linkage
off the top of my head, I can tell you for certain that one of those statistics is false. The references may be old, but its harder to find a paper with an equal amount of data supporting. If there is one, I would most certainly like to read it. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 20:14:00 -
[10]
Am I the only one who expected Neo beating up endlessly multiplying Al Gores? ------
Originally by: CCP Prism X There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts! |
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 20:24:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Asperger
Originally by: Sharupak
Originally by: Asperger Edited by: Asperger on 01/10/2007 19:22:53 It's weird that people would rather believe in the Sunday Telegraph, in a dishonest document from 2006, written by an amateur, rather than real climate scientists...
His conclusions are laughable mostly because they either outright false or simply ask the wrong question.
How is it dishonest/false? Do you have a link to an article that dismantles this?
Not an article, but a lot of discussion and references are linked here.
Thanks _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 20:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Patch86 Am I the only one who expected Neo beating up endlessly multiplying Al Gores?
1 Al Gore is sufficient I think. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 20:54:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Sharupak on 01/10/2007 20:56:06
Originally by: Thanos Draicon Edited by: Thanos Draicon on 01/10/2007 20:05:33
Originally by: Document
stuff False
None of those propositions or their conlcusions are scientifically tested hypotheses, and scientists don't use words like "not proven" or "unlikely" to discuss the conclusion of experiments, research, or studies. Also, the majority of his sources are 10-20 years old, and only about 10 out of 50~ are from after 2000. Also, look at the wording of these arguments:
Quote: 8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely 9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely 10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
He's suggesting that curbing carbon emissions will be ineffective, changes to mediate our impact on the environment would be too costly to make them worthwhile, and that precautionary measures would actually be irresponsible instead of responsible. Given the source's history of being involved with the leadership of the conservative party and how these three arguments are not environmental issues but financial ones (which should be outside the scope of a scientific study unless on that specific subject), it's fairly easy to see that this study is unscientific, cherry-picks its (sometimes 30 year old) data, and is more about money than science.
Hold on a sec why would financial argument be outside the scope. Fixing global warming is going to require mass amounts of money applied in the right places right?
That cherry-picking seems to be the buzz word from monbiot that asperger linked me. I dont doubt there is political motivation, however, I am positive it is equally underhanded and ferocious on both side as alot is or is not at stake here.
Linkage
You dont think this guy is politically motivated?
The only difference between the two sides that I have seen is that
One side professes global warming to be true and either doesnt have or hides the in depth data to prove mankinds impact on rising temperatures
The otherside in their eagerness to slam the left are showing people "data" that fits a logical thought process that at least shows a possibility that global warming is a natural cycle of the earth.
I am sorry if that sounds heavily bias, but thats how I see it. I cant seem to find data coupled with a logical thought process in a paper supporting global warming...just statistics. Even George professes that the midevil warming period is total bull**** because smart scientists say so. Really? Thats fantastic! Let me see it! Shouldnt be too hard for him to explain in a writeup or something if it has already been proven to be untrue. Ok, I am getting a bit worked up but its because this element of it is frustrating because "stamp of approval" scientists are said to support it does not fly with me period. In fact, articles that resort to character assasination as a means of dispelling something that someone has written also does not fly with me. I want to see it all on the table so that I can decide for myself. Not to be told that I am to dumb or too uneducated to understand it. I know otherwise. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Ademaro Imre
Caldari Eye of God
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 23:31:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 01/10/2007 23:31:55 It doesn't matter the data is old unless it been specifically proven to be false. Data is data.
Read these instead:
The Chilling Stars
The CERN Project doesn't start until 2010.
Unstoppable Global Warming
|
Locus Bey
Gallente Qalandar
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 02:31:00 -
[15]
Monckton is an idiot, and has been proven so on many occassions:
Monckton idiocy
|
Kata Dakini
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 02:33:00 -
[16]
I think it's safe to say that EVERYONE agrees that Global Warming is happening. If you disagree, you're just being silly.
However
It's also safe to say that there are unlimited variables that could affect climate change. With that simple fact in mind, who really cares what's causing it? If everyone is going to disagree on the subject, and noteworthy scientists are going to continue spinning their data in favor of whichever political force provides them with their desired grant monies, then we should just accept the fact that it's happening and instead worry about what we're going to do to protect ourselves instead of worry about who is right and who is wrong.
Okay, sure, you have to understand a problem before you can try to alleviate the symptoms, but how long is that going to take? There are simply too many factors at work here for us to gain a firm grasp of what is going on. It will take lifetimes.
Alleviate the symptoms. That's all we can really do. There is simply no plausible way of "fixing" global warming.
On a related note, I'd like someone to come up with a feasible method of launching a collapsed Hoberman Sphere into space, apply a skin to it, give it artificial gravity, give it a helio-orbit, and we can just make new planets wherever we want.
For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized.
|
pwnedgato
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 03:01:00 -
[17]
Fight Global Warming With Nuclear Winter! ----- signature |
Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 03:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sharupak Hold on a sec why would financial argument be outside the scope. Fixing global warming is going to require mass amounts of money applied in the right places right?
Because at the point you're asking a climatologist for an analysis of economics, you might as well walk outside and ask the first person that comes down the road.
The climatologist says, "This is what has happened. This is what is observed as currently happening. <insert a lot of science> Thusly, this is what should happen in the future. Here are some methods that should alter this in some way." Then you pass it off to the economist and a couple of specialized engineers, who say, "Method A is physically unfeasable at the current time. Similarly, Method B is financially unfeasable. Method C, however, can be implimented without an undue adverse affect on the economy."
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 03:44:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Sharupak Edited by: Sharupak on 01/10/2007 20:56:06
Originally by: Thanos Draicon Edited by: Thanos Draicon on 01/10/2007 20:05:33
Originally by: Document
stuff False
None of those propositions or their conlcusions are scientifically tested hypotheses, and scientists don't use words like "not proven" or "unlikely" to discuss the conclusion of experiments, research, or studies. Also, the majority of his sources are 10-20 years old, and only about 10 out of 50~ are from after 2000. Also, look at the wording of these arguments:
Quote: 8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely 9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely 10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
He's suggesting that curbing carbon emissions will be ineffective, changes to mediate our impact on the environment would be too costly to make them worthwhile, and that precautionary measures would actually be irresponsible instead of responsible. Given the source's history of being involved with the leadership of the conservative party and how these three arguments are not environmental issues but financial ones (which should be outside the scope of a scientific study unless on that specific subject), it's fairly easy to see that this study is unscientific, cherry-picks its (sometimes 30 year old) data, and is more about money than science.
Hold on a sec why would financial argument be outside the scope. Fixing global warming is going to require mass amounts of money applied in the right places right?
because you dont have an economy if everyone is dead
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 03:48:00 -
[20]
The medievil warming period corresponds to mans deforestation of europe, when the black death hit and killed alot of people, the forests had a chance to recover absorbing additional carbon from the atmosphere causing a cooling period afterwards. This reversed again when deforestation rose again with population growth. The trend accelerated when we began the industrial revolution.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
|
Khadur
Minmatar Spontaneous Defenestration
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 04:05:00 -
[21]
A message from al gore
|
Frug
Zenithal Harvest 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 04:47:00 -
[22]
How about calling it climate change instead of global warming. That way the uninformed argument that "well this winter is really cold here so there's no global warming" doesn't get brought up.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 09:52:00 -
[23]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 02/10/2007 09:54:24 nt
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 10:11:00 -
[24]
Global Warming + Nuclear Winder = Business as usual.
Note: we may need to nick Dark Shikari's supply of Nuclear Scrubbers though....
Originally by: CCP Morpheus
Post with your alt.
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 13:40:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Amarria Black
Originally by: Sharupak Hold on a sec why would financial argument be outside the scope. Fixing global warming is going to require mass amounts of money applied in the right places right?
Because at the point you're asking a climatologist for an analysis of economics, you might as well walk outside and ask the first person that comes down the road.
The climatologist says, "This is what has happened. This is what is observed as currently happening. <insert a lot of science> Thusly, this is what should happen in the future. Here are some methods that should alter this in some way." Then you pass it off to the economist and a couple of specialized engineers, who say, "Method A is physically unfeasable at the current time. Similarly, Method B is financially unfeasable. Method C, however, can be implimented without an undue adverse affect on the economy."
Good point there. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 13:43:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 02/10/2007 03:49:24
Originally by: Sharupak Edited by: Sharupak on 01/10/2007 20:56:06
Originally by: Thanos Draicon Edited by: Thanos Draicon on 01/10/2007 20:05:33
Originally by: Document
stuff False
None of those propositions or their conlcusions are scientifically tested hypotheses, and scientists don't use words like "not proven" or "unlikely" to discuss the conclusion of experiments, research, or studies. Also, the majority of his sources are 10-20 years old, and only about 10 out of 50~ are from after 2000. Also, look at the wording of these arguments:
Quote: 8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely 9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely 10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False
He's suggesting that curbing carbon emissions will be ineffective, changes to mediate our impact on the environment would be too costly to make them worthwhile, and that precautionary measures would actually be irresponsible instead of responsible. Given the source's history of being involved with the leadership of the conservative party and how these three arguments are not environmental issues but financial ones (which should be outside the scope of a scientific study unless on that specific subject), it's fairly easy to see that this study is unscientific, cherry-picks its (sometimes 30 year old) data, and is more about money than science.
Hold on a sec why would financial argument be outside the scope. Fixing global warming is going to require mass amounts of money applied in the right places right?
because you dont have an economy if everyone is dead Try keeping a stable economy going when the worlds rainfall decides to "redistribute" itself.
Yes, but that would be predicated on the fact that global warming is an undeniable train wreck that is unstoppably on the way. You are certain that this is the case. However the writer (mountonk or whatever) does not see it that way. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 14:03:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 02/10/2007 04:00:09
Originally by: Sharupak
Ok, I am getting a bit worked up but its because this element of it is frustrating because "stamp of approval" scientists are said to support it does not fly with me period. In fact, articles that resort to character assasination as a means of dispelling something that someone has written also does not fly with me. I want to see it all on the table so that I can decide for myself. Not to be told that I am to dumb or too uneducated to understand it. I know otherwise.
Character assassination is vital to actually breaking down false opinion. If someone truely believes facts to be true they will never concede ground. Sound familiar? o and here one for your side of the debate.
The medievil warming period corresponds to mans deforestation of europe, when the black death hit and killed alot of people, the forests had a chance to recover absorbing additional carbon from the atmosphere causing a cooling period afterwards. This reversed again when deforestation rose again with population growth. The trend accelerated when we began the industrial revolution.
It's not just carbon being burnt, it's the removal of the flora & fauna that keep its natural cycles in check. Concrete don't do a great job of retaining carbon based materials.
Look, you know I am a crazy ass tin foil hatter lunatic. If I go and get my PHD in geology and weather science. Then I start publishing articles and scientific papers slamming pro global warming scientists on the basis that they do not have the qualifications that I do and they are talking out of their *******, what would you say then? I will tell you what you would be saying "This idiot is garnering support for his cause and has not shown nearly enough evidence to disprove global warming" "Where is this guys data" "He is making a living off of defacing hard working scientists.
I would like to see a link to deforestation of europe causing the midevil warming period if you have one. If not, what magazine should I pickup. I just want to know where you get your information from so that I can decide for myself. Because I would like to know how that effects climate change that dramatically in other places like south america and austrailia and whatnot.
_______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Leora Nomen
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 19:56:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sharupak
Originally by: Asperger Edited by: Asperger on 01/10/2007 19:22:53 It's weird that people would rather believe in the Sunday Telegraph, in a dishonest document from 2006, written by an amateur, rather than real climate scientists... His conclusions are laughable mostly because they either outright false or simply ask the wrong question.
How is it dishonest/false? Do you have a link to an article that dismantles this?
Problem is that majority of the professional journals in science, especially the most respected ones that publish best work, require subscription. If you would like to get access to these primary sources, you'll have to pay for it to get access and do a search. You cannot ask people to give you links as practically all of those will be pieces from popular media written by people who are trained in journalism, humanities rather than physical science.
guide to game time codes |
Locus Bey
Gallente Qalandar
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 22:02:00 -
[29]
I'm gathering you didn't read the links I provided Sharupuk
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.10.02 22:10:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Celeste Coeval Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 02/10/2007 04:00:09
Originally by: Sharupak
Ok, I am getting a bit worked up but its because this element of it is frustrating because "stamp of approval" scientists are said to support it does not fly with me period. In fact, articles that resort to character assasination as a means of dispelling something that someone has written also does not fly with me. I want to see it all on the table so that I can decide for myself. Not to be told that I am to dumb or too uneducated to understand it. I know otherwise.
Character assassination is vital to actually breaking down false opinion. If someone truely believes facts to be true they will never concede ground. Sound familiar? o and here one for your side of the debate.
The medievil warming period corresponds to mans deforestation of europe, when the black death hit and killed alot of people, the forests had a chance to recover absorbing additional carbon from the atmosphere causing a cooling period afterwards. This reversed again when deforestation rose again with population growth. The trend accelerated when we began the industrial revolution.
It's not just carbon being burnt, it's the removal of the flora & fauna that keep its natural cycles in check. Concrete don't do a great job of retaining carbon based materials.
1. There is no such thing as a false opinion, opinions are based on ones observation of ones reality. You may think that someones opinion differs from yours (or rather, relative to yours) but there is no absolute truth in ones opinion. Absolute truth is something that cannot be refuted, regardless of ones position of observation.
2. Man has only been recording temperature, pressure and other environmental data for about 150 years. Last I checked, the medievil period of human history was well before this. And the black death was due to very, very poor sanitation, not the carbon byproducts. All I have to say to this stupid, stupid statement is why? Why have you made me dumber with such a comment? What did I ever do to you?
There is nothing that man can do to this Earth, short of Nuclear interaction with the environment, that the Earth cannot recover from or adapt to. There is only a finite amount of matter we have access to. All we are doing is moving it around into different arrangements. If you cut down every single tree in the world, the algae populations would explode due to the sudden spike of carbon dioxide levels in the air.
And so on, and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |