Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 14, 2008 21:07:24 GMT -4
And your claims about Al Gore and the British court case are entirely wrong. I have a shoot for the next several hours, so I can't sit here and correct you. In short, the judge disputed 9 points in the film, but allowed it to be shown in classes if additional information was allowed. He did not dispute the main claim of the film. If I don't get to it today, I will do it tomorrow. The judge basically agreed that An Inconvenient Trusth made a partisan political statement. Yes, he seems to believe the basic message of the film is correct. So I guess the judge has green political views. Nine points were recognized as "out of the mainstream" by the judge because they were factually inaccurate, as his statement makes clear. UK Judges are not famous for environmental activism. The case to stop the film being shown for educational purposes was rejected: the 9 factual errors identified given the status of nitpicking.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 15, 2008 10:09:47 GMT -4
Those aren't my points - they're the points the judge found were lacking in the movie. As I said, my problem with the whole global warming idea is not that climate change may be occuring, but the idea that human activity caused it and different human activiity can reverse it. It may in fact be true, but I don't think it's been proven to this point. If the causal link can't be proven then it's not scientific. Without proof that we caused global warming and can reverse it, the carbon offset business is a scam and attempts to curtail industry or transportation are costly mistakes and should not be acted on unless they would provide other demonstratable benefits proportional to their costs. How about this, from the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.htmlOr this: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists “very high confidence” (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm. This level of confidence is much greater than what could be achieved in 2001 when the IPCC issued its last major report.www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htmHey, but what do they know? They're just climate scientists. Oh, and the EPA says it, too. But I guess if blogs, right wingnut radio and studies funded by oil companies say it's baloney, then those scientists and the EPA must be wrong. I honestly think you have your head in the sand, Jason.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 15, 2008 10:53:05 GMT -4
"Very likely". Yeah, that sounds iron-clad to me. And of course weathermen are always 9 out of 10 times accurate, aren't they? Two problems with these articles - the first one is too basic to really say anything except "trust us". The second says they're confident that human activity has caused greenhouse gases to increase in the air, but how do they know that this is what is causing the current warming trend? All they can say is "very likely."
Really, the problem with believing these guys is twofold. First of all, the Earth's entire climate is an extremely complex system. I just don't think we're at the point where we can accurately model it yet, therefore anything predicted by climate models should be taken with large doses of salt. And they use data from 100 years ago to show that average temperature has gone up by 1.7 degrees. Well how accurate were thermometers a hundred years ago, really, compared to today's? There's a website out there that shows that a lot of today's climate stations in the US are parked near air conditioners and over asphalt. And we hear about revised figures and predictions coming out all the time that are quite a bit different from the original ones.
The second problem is that these guys get more grants the more people they can convince that this is a serious problem needing research. How do we know that in attempting to predict such a complex system, with any number of factors that could be affecting it, that they aren't just a little tempted to come up with the conclusion that keeps them in a job? And they're certainly being encouraged by the "hate industry" crowd and liberals looking for a cause.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 15, 2008 13:45:21 GMT -4
How accurate were thermometers? How accurate are climate models? Gosh, let me see. I think those are good questions. I'm going to defer to those who study the issue, such as climate scientists.
Your response is just a bunch of unsupported conjecture. The idea that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are just in it to make a buck is pretty typical conservative blather -- conservatives think everything must be about money, so climate change science must also be about money. The idea that climate science is like TV weather forecasting is actually fairly offensive, but does accurately reflect the level of your argument.
Your response shows that non-belief in Global Warming is very much like a religion, as you have fulfilled just about all the qualifications you listed earlier.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 15, 2008 14:39:10 GMT -4
Celsius developed his temperature scale in 1742 and his determination of the variation of the boiling point of water with atmospheric pressure is acceptably accurate today.
Digital thermometers require less skill to read, but aren't necessarily more accurate.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 15, 2008 21:53:31 GMT -4
Your response is just a bunch of unsupported conjecture. The idea that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are just in it to make a buck is pretty typical conservative blather -- conservatives think everything must be about money, so climate change science must also be about money. It's not just money, it's also the spotlight, recognition, and the ability to change the world. And it's vague enough science that a climate scientist can easily honestly believe that he is correct. So where's the proof that humans are indeed causing global warming? Saying "trust the climate scientists" is akin to saying "trust your pastor - he's studied much more than you have and understands these things better." It reduces the question to one of credibility - who do you believe? Global warmists want extraordinary (and very expensive) action in order to save the planet. Their claims therefore require extraordinary proof. Not vague pointing to climate change and saying "it's very likely we're causing it".
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 15, 2008 23:13:47 GMT -4
And it's vague enough science that a climate scientist can easily honestly believe that he is correct. What is vague about climate science? Is the same true of saying "Trust aerospace engineers" in questions relating to Apollo, or "Trust structural engineers" in questions about the WTC collapse? Is it your position that if humans did not cause global warming, they have no reason to do anything about it? And regardless of how alarmist the doomsday crowd is about it, the planet is in absolutely no danger from global warming. Only continued human occupation thereof is in question.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 16, 2008 12:03:44 GMT -4
I don't have much to add to what Data Cable said. Conservatives in this country have made climate change a partisan issue by pretending there is some debate about: first, whether or not it was happening at all and now about whether or not it is caused by humans. Conservatives have set back the issue by probably something like a decade or more.
The Miklós Zágoni study is a prime example of the conservative tactic. Wave it around and claim that it is a nail in the coffin for the whole idea of global warming and hope that nobody reads the report to see that it is (again, apparently) not even a report that questions global warming. And then hold up every crackpot who uses global warming as an excuse as proof that the underlying science is wrong. Oh, some jackass claims that Nessie is dead because of global warming. He is an idiot, therefore anyone who claims global warming is real must also be an idiot.
As I said earlier, I hope that when the effects of climate change become all too apparent, people will remember that it was conservatives who continued to deny it until the very last moment.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 16, 2008 18:37:27 GMT -4
How accurate are climate models? Gosh, let me see. I think those are good questions. Interesting question, based on the post that restarted this thread. The entire premise of that post was that climate models aren't auccrate. The story in the article was about a new model that was able to show a closer correlation to the actual data than the currently used models which were not showing accuracy. Hence the whole issue, shouldn't we be looking closer at a model that is showing closer corelation to the real situation, or should we ignore it because it doesn't agree with the dire warnings that the GW crowd have been shouting for years. When you get right too it, models are created from our understanding of the underlying structure of the thing being modelled. We still don't understand the way our climate works, thus how can we really model it accurately? Weather forecasting today is done via computer models, usually using 4-5 of them and then trying to determine which is closest to what is actually happening, and yet how accurately do the Forecasters get the weather forecasts? And that is just for the next few days! In the end the computer just does what we tell it. If we believe that x amount of CO 2 will have affect y and add that assumption into our model, then when the model has x amount of CO 2 in it the computer will be saying that we have affect y. If we're wrong about our assumption, the model is wrong, but because we've told it that x -> y, it reinforced the believe by spitting out our assumption. In this way we are literally building circular models that may or may not be correct based on if our assumptions are correct. It one of these assumptions is that using an infinately think atmosphere will have no affect on the equations, and yet it is shown that a real based thickness of atmosphere does give a different result, then one needs to start examing each assumptuion to see if they really hold up or not, and if people aren't willing to do that, then it is no longer science, it has become a belief.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 16, 2008 18:42:52 GMT -4
No one here is doing that, it's being pointed out that his study, which merely questions the models used and the serverity of the current predictions, is being buried by those that seem determined to have the severest possible predictions. If they are unwilling to relook at their models and see if this new model does a better job at predicting what's going on, then surely they have fallen out of the realm of science and into belief and if they aren't willing to have anyone challenge that belief, but rather stamp on anyone that gives a different message to them as a heretic, then surely they are becoming a religion.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 16, 2008 19:34:49 GMT -4
The test for models is against observed real-world data.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 16, 2008 23:24:57 GMT -4
The test for models is against observed real-world data. Exactly, and they appear to be failing that test, whereas Miklós Zágoni's is apparently succeeding. If this is the case, why are the GW Doomsdayists clinging o their models and burying Miklós Zágoni's so he has to publish in Hungerian Journals and quit NASA from the pressure to not publish anything that disagrees with the current doomsday senario of GW?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 16, 2008 23:39:49 GMT -4
And it's vague enough science that a climate scientist can easily honestly believe that he is correct. What is vague about climate science? What is not vague about climate science? Aerospace engineers and structural engineers can produce working hardware to show you they know what they're talking about. Not necessarily. But can we actually do anything about it? From what I've heard, even the strictest measures suggested will not actually stop global warming, by the models of those who believe it has a human cause, only mitigate it at best. Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, who absolutely believes in human-caused global warming, also argues that we have other priorities where we could spend our money for more benefit. Cost benefit. If we spend reams of money imposing controls on carbon emissions for little to no benefit then that would be a mistake.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 16, 2008 23:55:24 GMT -4
No one here is doing that, it's being pointed out that his study, which merely questions the models used and the serverity of the current predictions, is being buried by those that seem determined to have the severest possible predictions. If they are unwilling to relook at their models and see if this new model does a better job at predicting what's going on, then surely they have fallen out of the realm of science and into belief and if they aren't willing to have anyone challenge that belief, but rather stamp on anyone that gives a different message to them as a heretic, then surely they are becoming a religion. That was my point in posting it.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 17, 2008 6:52:35 GMT -4
The test for models is against observed real-world data. Exactly, and they appear to be failing that test, whereas Miklós Zágoni's is apparently succeeding. If this is the case, why are the GW Doomsdayists clinging o their models and burying Miklós Zágoni's so he has to publish in Hungerian Journals and quit NASA from the pressure to not publish anything that disagrees with the current doomsday senario of GW? Aside from his say-so, what shows that this is the case?
|
|