A new dark age or simply putting blindfolds on ourselves?

potzer25 · 02-19-2012, 11:23 PM

Attacks paid for by big business are 'driving science into a dark era'

Ballboy534 · 02-20-2012, 05:59 AM

A poorly written article based on opinion; the Earth's climate is certainly changing, but I have yet to read any research article that definitively proves man's interference has caused a shift in climate. I don't think there will be a way to show that we aren't just experiencing a "normal" shift; there are just too many variables to consider.

Leader O'Cola · 02-20-2012, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballboy534

A poorly written article based on opinion; the Earth's climate is certainly changing, but I have yet to read any research article that definitively proves man's interference has caused a shift in climate. I don't think there will be a way to show that we aren't just experiencing a "normal" shift; there are just too many variables to consider.

The CO2 response to incident IR is both repeatedly measured in experiment as well as predicted by quantum chemical computational modeling.

johnshadows64 · 02-20-2012, 10:14 AM

When inferential statistics is used to confirm that a drug will control your blood pressure, instead of killing you, science is good. When it shows with 90% certainty that human inputs affect climate change, or that we might have come from monkeys, science is bad.

But truthfully, we're all going along for the ride at this point. A british panel on climate control predicted that the Earth would be a net carbon source by the year 2050. The feedback loop of melting ice releasing trapped greenhouse gases (I've read 350 gigatons below the arctic tundra) could seriously outscale human CO2 emissions (7 gigatons a year). The planet is gonna get a lot warmer, and then it's going to get real cold again at some point, in the same pattern it's been repeating for 400,000 years. Humans are just giving the cycle a little push.

O18 as a proxy for global temps (the high points are glacial era, low points warming periods):

Ballboy534 · 02-20-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leader O'Cola

The CO2 response to incident IR is both repeatedly measured in experiment as well as predicted by quantum chemical computational modeling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnshadows64

When inferential statistics is used to confirm that a drug will control your blood pressure, instead of killing you, science is good. When it shows with 90% certainty that human inputs affect climate change, science is bad.

But truthfully, we're all going along for the ride at this point. A british panel on climate control predicted that the Earth would be a net carbon source by the year 2050. The feedback loop of melting ice releasing trapped greenhouse gases (I've read 350 gigatons below the arctic tundra) could seriously outscale human CO2 emissions (7 gigatons a year). The planet is gonna get a lot warmer, and then it's going to get real cold again at some point, in the same pattern it's been repeating for 400,000 years. Humans are just giving the cycle a little push.

O18 as a proxy for global temps (the high points are glacial era, low points warming periods):

I am not stipulating that climate change doesn't exist; however, I am still skeptical that every "change" occurring is solely due to human existence and our interaction with the Earth. There are an overwhelming number of factors that tie into climate change and I highly doubt science will ever be able to agree on any one "measurement" to track it.

And besides, if people would diet and exercise, 90% of people wouldn't need meds to control their BP...

olympicoscar · 02-20-2012, 11:08 AM

One of the facts that a lot of us forget is that before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of pollutants that escaped into the environment was minimal compared to today. Factories and automobiles have caused more pollutants to escape into our enviroment in the past 200 years than in the total combined history of the world.

I don't profess to be an expert on this. All I can do is keep reading and try to come to a consensus opinion. So far, from all I've been able to read, Man certainly has played a role in global warming.

JuiceTheGator · 02-20-2012, 03:15 PM

LOL @ this bullshit. The recent embarrassment to the GW scam cause exposed all kinds of crap in those numbers - that's why nobody believes it. (nobody with a brain) One of their primary tricks, over the past 30 years, was moving measuring devices to heavily urban areas. The numbers are fake you drones.

do i even want to open this can of worms?

olympicoscar · 02-20-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuiceTheGator

LOL @ this bullshit. The recent embarrassment to the GW scam cause exposed all kinds of crap in those numbers - that's why nobody believes it. (nobody with a brain) One of their primary tricks, over the past 30 years, was moving measuring devices to heavily urban areas. The numbers are fake you drones.

do i even want to open this can of worms?

Speaking of fakes and people with their heads in the sand.

potzer25 · 02-20-2012, 04:18 PM

People are missing the point (in this and the other thread.) The question isn't whether global warming is real or man-made. The question is how scientific debates should occur and how much influence public opinion - which is significantly and primarily driven by advertising and politician's statements and/or actions - should have in driving conclusions and actions.

JuiceTheGator · 02-20-2012, 06:40 PM

Well, a movement like this shouldn't be started and funded by Goldman Sachs. That's one good point I think for future scientific debates!

Ballboy534 · 02-20-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potzer25

People are missing the point (in this and the other thread.) The question isn't whether global warming is real or man-made. The question is how scientific debates should occur and how much influence public opinion - which is significantly and primarily driven by advertising and politician's statements and/or actions - should have in driving conclusions and actions.

Thanks for keeping us on track; that's a huge issue, because with the advent of private grants for research, the pure pursuit of knowledge is usually bought anyway (especially on the highest levels). It's gotta be almost impossible for most scientific researchers to remain completely impartial when they're so reliant on public perception to get funding. I'm honestly not sure it's still possible to separate the two even with federal grants

potzer25 · 02-20-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ballboy534

Thanks for keeping us on track; that's a huge issue, because with the advent of private grants for research, the pure pursuit of knowledge is usually bought anyway (especially on the highest levels). It's gotta be almost impossible for most scientific researchers to remain completely impartial when they're so reliant on public perception to get funding. I'm honestly not sure it's still possible to separate the two even with federal grants

It probably can't be completely separated but people are generally professional. To make this out to be some vast conspiracy with all these climatologist lying only makes rational discussion about the research - by those that actually know anything - in a way that positively influences public policy that much harder.

goDAWGSsicem · 02-20-2012, 11:15 PM

I blame Mtv.

potzer25 · 02-21-2012, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goDAWGSsicem

I blame Mtv.

If only they still showed music videos....

02-19-2012, 11:23 PM	#1
potzer25 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: SF East Bay Posts: 3,405 Rep Power: 12091	A new dark age or simply putting blindfolds on ourselves? Attacks paid for by big business are 'driving science into a dark era' __________________ pearls before swine

02-20-2012, 05:59 AM	#2
Ballboy534 Resident Rehabilitator Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SC Posts: 3,395 Rep Power: 12015	A poorly written article based on opinion; the Earth's climate is certainly changing, but I have yet to read any research article that definitively proves man's interference has caused a shift in climate. I don't think there will be a way to show that we aren't just experiencing a "normal" shift; there are just too many variables to consider. __________________ "Yes, I saw Dear John. He was good in that movie and in fact that movie is not that bad" - OregonDucks

02-20-2012, 03:15 PM	#7
JuiceTheGator Engorged Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sw Florida Posts: 11,339 Rep Power: 32508	LOL @ this bullshit. The recent embarrassment to the GW scam cause exposed all kinds of crap in those numbers - that's why nobody believes it. (nobody with a brain) One of their primary tricks, over the past 30 years, was moving measuring devices to heavily urban areas. The numbers are fake you drones. do i even want to open this can of worms? __________________ All I really want is to learn something new and interesting. Surprise me dumbass.

02-20-2012, 04:18 PM	#9
potzer25 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: SF East Bay Posts: 3,405 Rep Power: 12091	People are missing the point (in this and the other thread.) The question isn't whether global warming is real or man-made. The question is how scientific debates should occur and how much influence public opinion - which is significantly and primarily driven by advertising and politician's statements and/or actions - should have in driving conclusions and actions. __________________ pearls before swine

02-20-2012, 06:40 PM	#10
JuiceTheGator Engorged Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sw Florida Posts: 11,339 Rep Power: 32508	Well, a movement like this shouldn't be started and funded by Goldman Sachs. That's one good point I think for future scientific debates! __________________ All I really want is to learn something new and interesting. Surprise me dumbass.

02-20-2012, 10:14 AM	#4
johnshadows64 Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New Atlantis Posts: 1,430 Rep Power: 0	When inferential statistics is used to confirm that a drug will control your blood pressure, instead of killing you, science is good. When it shows with 90% certainty that human inputs affect climate change, or that we might have come from monkeys, science is bad. But truthfully, we're all going along for the ride at this point. A british panel on climate control predicted that the Earth would be a net carbon source by the year 2050. The feedback loop of melting ice releasing trapped greenhouse gases (I've read 350 gigatons below the arctic tundra) could seriously outscale human CO2 emissions (7 gigatons a year). The planet is gonna get a lot warmer, and then it's going to get real cold again at some point, in the same pattern it's been repeating for 400,000 years. Humans are just giving the cycle a little push. O18 as a proxy for global temps (the high points are glacial era, low points warming periods):

02-20-2012, 11:08 AM	#6
olympicoscar Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dallas Posts: 2,428 Rep Power: 13602	One of the facts that a lot of us forget is that before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of pollutants that escaped into the environment was minimal compared to today. Factories and automobiles have caused more pollutants to escape into our enviroment in the past 200 years than in the total combined history of the world. I don't profess to be an expert on this. All I can do is keep reading and try to come to a consensus opinion. So far, from all I've been able to read, Man certainly has played a role in global warming.

02-20-2012, 11:15 PM	#13
goDAWGSsicem Biggest Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Georgia Posts: 19,627 Rep Power: 23017	I blame Mtv. __________________ How 'Bout Them DAWGS?